Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Rent Arrears

Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on local authority rent arrears in London.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): Rent arrears to local authorities in London rose by 24 per cent. in 1987–88, from £84 million to £104 million. They are mainly concentrated in a small number of Labour-controlled inner-London boroughs. One third of the total arrears in England and two thirds of the national increase last year was in the worst 10 authorities, nine of which are London boroughs.

Mr. Summerson: In the light of those staggering figures, does my right hon. Friend agree that if local authorities were more efficient in collecting their rents not only would their housing revenue accounts be in better shape, but they would be less assiduous in making ever-increasing calls on the taxpayer for more and more money?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. For instance, in Labour-controlled Barking and Dagenham, arrears constitute 3·2 per cent. of the rent roll. In Brent, the figure is 46·9 per cent. in terms of rent and if rates are added it is nearly 100 per cent. That may, of course, be because three Brent Labour councillors together owe amounts of rent which must add up to £8,000.

Mr. Cohen: Is the Minister aware that in the Labour-controlled London borough of Waltham Forest rent arrears have been more than halved from the level under the previous Tory-Liberal controlled council and that the only reason for rent arrears across London increasing has been the cuts in social security benefits, especially housing benefit?

Mr. Gummer: That last comment is not true. It is interesting to note that the 10 authorities with the highest rent arrears are Brent, Lambeth, Southwark, Islington, Hackney, Haringey, Liverpool, Waltham Forest—the eighth highest—Greenwich and Camden. They are all Labour authorities, they are all a disgrace and they should all be put right.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the leader of Brent council owes £2,000 in rent arrears, and that the vice-chairman of the Lambeth housing committee owes £1,500 in rent arrears, having collected

£29,000 in council attendance allowances in two years? When will my right hon. Friend put into the Local Government and Housing Bill a clause which bans people from remaining councillors if they wilfully owe rent and rates to their local authorities?

Mr. Gummer: I understand that my hon. Friend is a member of the Standing Committee on that Bill, so he will be able to express his views on that matter. I think that he is wrong about the leader of Brent council who I believe is not now in arrears—[Interruption.] I do not want to go into the history of this as it would be embarrassing. I agree with my hon. Friend about the Lambeth example, in respect of which my comments in the House were attacked by the Opposition but supported by the local representative of the National and Local Government Officers Association.

Mr. Soley: Before Conservative Members turn their hatred on other councillors, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Secretary of State's own research shows that council housing is far better managed than housing associations? Why has the Audit Commission commended Brent council on its rent collection procedures and recommended that the Government help by recognising that those arrears have accrued over three different Administrations—including Conservative ones—and that it should have the burden lifted from it? Does the Minister agree with the housing movement generally that the reason for increased rent arrears is housing benefit cuts, or does he agree with the former Under-Secretary of State for Social Services, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), who said that the real reason was that rents had been put up by the Government?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, wrong. On housing management, the Maclennan report states:
In general, tenants regarded housing associations as better providers of management services than councils".
The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for trying to defend Brent—he council which does not even have a list of its tenants, the council which found that its council house keys were being sold in Nigeria to students who were coming here, and the council which has rent and rate arrears amounting to nearly 100 per cent. of its roll. Brent council should also be ashamed of itself.

Mr. Gow: What action has been taken through the courts—by fellow councillors who do not belong to the loony Left, by fellow ratepayers who resent district councils cheating them, or by the district auditor—to prevent the scandal from continuing?

Mr. Gummer: People should be taken to court by the councils to which they owe the rent. The problem is that if councillors do not support their officers' attempts to take people who do not pay their rent to court, the officers cease to be able to do their job properly. The trouble is that all those who do not pay their rent put a burden on others who may be much less well off. In a world of generous housing benefit, those who need help get it through the housing benefit system.

Homelessness

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest available figure for homelessness; and what was the figure in 1979.

Mr. Boateng: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available extra moneys to local authorities, to assist them with any increased housing or advice needs consequent on the rises in mortgage interest rates and the report of the Audit Commission on bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures for homelessness in England and Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): In the 12 months to September 1988 English authorities accepted responsibility for 116,220 homeless households; in 1979 the figure was 57,200. For Welsh figures I refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
We have already made nearly £50 million in additional resources available to authorities in 1988–89 specifically to help the homeless, together with £680,000 to voluntary groups providing advice and assistance. Our review of the homelessness legislation will take account of current trends and the constructive conclusions of the Audit Commission's study.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that the leading cause of this distressing social problem is repossession due to mortgage arrears? Quite apart from the situation in London, is he aware that in Wales the rate of repossessions due to mortgage arrears is seven times higher than it was in 1979? Is it not time that the Government took active measures to tackle this problem, first by lowering interest rates and secondly through a major public housing drive?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman must have prepared his supplementary question before he read the report from the Building Societies Association, which was widely covered in this morning's press. I am pleased to note that figures published today by the BSA show that mortgage arrears and possessions in the second half of 1988 continued to decline. The director general of the BSA, commenting on those figures, said:
Statistical analysis shows no relationship between interest rates and either possessions or arrears. In general an increase in interest rates, even a substantial one, does not change a good borrower into a potential possession case.

Mr. Boateng: As the plight of those who languish in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is not a matter of party political controversy but is accepted by all, will the Minister assure Members in all parts of the House that he intends to undertake the review recommended by the Audit Commission of the regulations relative to leasing arrangements, which prevent councils such as my own, which the Minister has commended, from entering into arrangements with the private developers to provide other accommodation for people who otherwise languish in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Will he also accept the Audit Commission's recommendation that those boroughs which have a particular problem in relation to people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation should receive a special allocation of resources so that they can deal with the problem? Will the Minister give specific assurances on those matters?

Mr. Trippier: I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman as I believe that policy on bed-and-breakfast accommodation is a matter of political difference both within the

House and outside. The latest figures for London show that there are some 23,300 empty council dwellings, which is three times as many the number of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. There is a direct correlation not only between those figures, but between the number of empty dwellings in London and the number of people registered as homeless. It is hypocritical for the hon. Gentleman to give the Government advice on housing when he should be spending more of his time giving advice to his local authority to improve its housing management as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government. Until that authority has cleared up the mess in its own backyard, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should try to specialise in an area in which his own local authority is not an embarrassment to him.

Miss Lestor: Has the Minister yet had time to examine the Barnardo's report and to consider the plight of young people coming out of care and joining the ranks of the homeless because they cannot afford to live and to pay rent? Is it not time that the Minister liaised with the Department of Employment about the position of those young people in regard to YTS? They cannot exist on the money provided and they are being treated as though they lived at home when they have come out of local authority care and literally have nowhere to go?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady's specific point is directly a matter for the Department of Social Security, but I have seen the report to which she refers. It certainly contains some messages that we should examine carefully in our current review of homelessness, which is nearing completion and on which we are almost ready to make a statement.

Mr. Heddle: Is it not a national scandal that more than 130,000 council-owned properties were empty last night, of which more than 30,000 have been empty for more than 12 months? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Audit Commission has produced a damning report on the inefficiency of certain local housing authorities? What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that Brent and other Labour-controlled councils apply the efficiency suggested in the Audit Commission report?

Mr. Trippier: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I said, we found the report by the Audit Commission—and Professor Maclennan's report which was released only this week—helpful in that regard. There is an inescapable correlation between the total number of empty properties in Britain and the number of those registered as homeless, particularly as the figures are almost the same. Until local authorities improve their efficiency in managing public housing stock, the position will not improve.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will be aware of substantial investment by his Department in hostels in London which have provided shelter for people who would otherwise be homeless. Will he liaise with his colleagues at the Department of Social Security to see whether relatively minor changes can be made in the income support regulations to safeguard the revenue flow which underpins those hostels?

Mr. Trippier: I know that my hon. Friend has raised that issue in the past and I understand the message that he


seeks to convey. I will certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Malins: Does my hon. Friend agree that because of homelessness many families with children in south London live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in quite appalling conditions? Does he agree that we should be moving towards the abolition of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and in the meantime considering legislation to force landlords of those bed-and-breakfast places to improve standards and conditions for families who have to live in them.

Mr. Trippier: I recognise the important contribution that my hon. Friend has made to that subject, both today and in the past. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is incredibly expensive.

Dr. Cunningham: It is inefficient.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—it is inefficient. We should like more Labour-controlled authorities to use their empty housing stock. Greenwich seems to deal with the matter most satisfactorily, in contrast to more extreme Left-wing authorities which quickly use bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I welcome the joint Association of London Authorities and London Boroughs Association working party report which is providing tighter controls on hotels used by London boroughs.

Mr. Soley: That is a disgraceful response. The Government should be ashamed of their attitude to homelessness. They know that 6 per cent. of Government-owned properties are empty, compared with 3·1 per cent. for housing associations and 2·5 per cent. for local authorities. The Minister knows that the figures that he gave for building societies are misleading because building societies are not the only lenders. One in 10 homeless families are homeless because of mortgage repossession. He also knows that the real reason why homelessness has doubled in Britain and men, women and children have to sleep in cardboard boxes is the lack of low-cost accommodation to rent or for sale. That is what is wrong with the Government's policy.

Mr. Trippier: It is strange that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) should even comment on this issue as his local authority has not used the £27 million that it has drawn in capital receipts to carry out repairs to existing stock although it has a significant number of dwellings awaiting major repairs. [Interruption] It is hypocritical of the hon. Gentleman to suggest, as he has today and on previous occasions, that there should be an increase in money for public housing when in their last three years of office the Labour Government cut public housing expenditure—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us try to settle down a bit.

Gloucestershire County Council

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet representatives of Gloucestershire county council; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I have no immediate plans for a formal visit, although I frequently meet local councillors.

Mr. French: When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of Gloucestershire county council—which, as he will know, is controlled by the Liberals with the support of Labour—will he ask why, in the past three years, the council has increasd its rates more than 50 per cent. while Gloucester city council which is controlled by the Conservatives, plans to reduce its rates by 18 per cent. this year.

Mr. Ridley: I will certainly ask those questions, but I can answer some of them now. The spending by Gloucestershire county council under the control of the Liberal and Labour parties over the full four-ear period has increased by 46·2 per cent. against an RPI increase of 20·8 per cent. In addition, the council's debt has increased by 70 per cent. and it is planning this year to take £10 million from balances to try to disguise the necessary rate rise on the eve of the elections.

Covent Garden Opera House (Extension)

Mr. Sedgemore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to call in the application for the Covent Garden opera house extension.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): No, Sir.

Mr. Sedgemore: In the light of the current farcical circumstances in which an internationally renowned institution is being squeezed between a car park and art office development, and bearing in mind that the royal opera house has no intention of proceeding with its existing application and has budgeted for a planning inquiry in its second application, is it not time that the Minister called the application in? Is it not time that the Minister put an end to the deception and deceit of the operatic manipulators and ensured that the development which finally takes place will be in the interests of the opera house and the surrounding area?

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman has made some rather hysterical comments about a matter which is well within the competence of the local authority.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Very quickly, does the Minister agree that the royal opera house—[Interruption.] I am being as quick as I can. The royal opera house now admits that the extension scheme does not provide for the type of improvements that are needed—in fact, there will be only 17 extra seats, but 300 extra parking spaces. In the light of those facts, given that this is a sensitive conservation area of national significance, will the Minister agree to call the application in?

Mr. Chope: The local council is well aware of the possible changes. That is why it has not granted planning permission and is having further discussions with the royal opera house. That seems perfectly reasonable.

Football League Clubs

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on recent


meetings held by the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) with the chairmen of the Football League clubs.

Mr. John Carlisle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the football authorities on the appointments to the Football Membership Authority.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): My right hon. Friend and I had a useful and constructive meeting with the chairmen of many of the league clubs about the Football Spectators Bill on 17 January and I met them again on 26 January. I met the president of the Football League and chairmen of the Football Association on 10 February to discuss aspects of the Bill and the wish of the football authorities to form the Football Membership Authority.

Mrs. Mahon: In view of the overwhelming opposition to the scheme and the decision in another place on Monday, will the Minister tell the Prime Minister that it is a non-tarter and that many league clubs are already in serious financial difficulties? Will he make a name for himself by standing up to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Moynihan: On the first point, the answer is no. On the second point, there is no good reason to believe that the scheme will have an adverse financial impact on clubs, even the smallest. A number of companies have already offered to set up and run the scheme at no cost to the clubs or the supporters. If the football authorities and clubs take a positive approach to marketing the scheme, financing it will not be a problem and the scheme can produce an income stream to football.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend recall the words of Mr. Ted Croker, then secretary of the Football Association, when he asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last summer to remove her tanks from his lawn? Is it not extraordinary that Opposition Members, the football authorities and a few misguided Conservative peers now seek to frustrate legislation which will remove hooliganism in and around football for ever?

Mr. Moynihan: Yes, and I firmly believe—as I am sure all my hon. Friends do—that Britain, the home of football, must set an example to the football-playing world.

Mr. Pendry: When the Minister met the football authorities, did they help him to unravel a problem, of his own making, for thousands of Northern Irish citizens who have Irish passports and who support Manchester United or Celtic Football Club? They will have to show their passports when they go to Old Trafford, but not when they go to Celtic Park; they will have to show their passports when Manchester United plays Celtic in a friendly, but not when Celtic plays Manchester United in a friendly, and they will have to show their passports when England plays Eire but not when Scotland plays Eire even though Eire is managed by an Englishman. If that problem was unravelled at that meeting, will the Minister now unravel it for the rest of us?

Mr. Moynihan: I will certainly do that. The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. If anybody wishes to see two league teams playing against each other, he will either

have to be a member of the national membership scheme or a guest of the club. In those circumstances, there is no need for the use of passports.

Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment passed in the other place to the Football Spectators Bill is nonsense and unworkable? Does he also agree that if Liverpool were in the scheme and Tranmere were not, a Liverpool fan who was banned from his own ground and from watching his country abroad would be able to go to Tranmere and cause mayhem?

Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend has raised two important points. The Government will give careful consideration to the impact of the amendment. On phasing, the Government have made it clear on many occasions that the position that my hon. Friend has just outlined is accurate. Phasing would require Charlton, a first division club which shares a ground with Crystal Palace, a second division club, to install and dismantle the technology at Selhurst Park every week, according to which team was playing at home. That would be nonsense.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Why is the Minister so grudging in his acknowledgment of the steps taken by Football League clubs to combat hooliganism in the past three or four years? If he thinks that those steps are insufficient and his own proposals are self-evidently correct, will he allow a free vote when the Bill come back, in a much emasculated form, from the other place?

Mr. Moynihan: On the evidence of the last point, I am convinced that if it were not for the Whipping of the Labour Benches, more Labour Members would support the Government on this important issue. I have made it clear on many occasions that the Government welcome the moves that the football authorities have taken, not least in building on the package of measures announced in February 1987. We saw last season that that was simply not enough and that we needed to come forward with additional measures to tackle a problem that has tarnished our image abroad and which continues to have a major detrimental effect through hooliganism being associated with the sport in this country.

Mr. Latham: If we must proceed with the scheme, may we at least have an assurance that the members of the Football Membership Authority, to which Question No. 7 refers, will be selected from people who attend football matches in places other than the directors' boxes?

Mr. Moynihan: I agree with my hon. Friend and I was grateful to the representatives of the FA and the League whom I met at my last meeting, who said that they wished to be approved as the Football Membership Authority. The Government keenly wish to see that and I am glad that the football authorities do too.

Mr. Denis Howell: Was it with the Minister's authority that, following the Government's defeat in another place on Monday, the No. 10 propaganda department yesterday called the press to a briefing to the effect that unless football ignores the will of Parliament as expressed in the Lords, sanctions will be taken against it, including refusing to allow the football authorities to operate the football membership scheme? Is not that contemptible blackmail? Furthermore, is it not a serious contempt of Parliament and a possible breach of privilege? What explanation can the Minister provide for that scandalous behaviour?

Mr. Moynihan: The only time that I would have used the word "contempt" yesterday was with reference to the contemptible nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman spoke on Radio 4 when he was defeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans). The right hon. Gentleman's account of the press briefing from No. 10 is absolute nonsense—[Interruption.] We have made it clear that we shall consider carefully the effect of the amendment passed in the Lords and make a decision on that, and we shall, no doubt, announce it shortly—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Members should come into other Question Times which are always held in silence. I cannot think what has gone wrong today.

Mr. Riddick: Has my hon. Friend seen the letter from the president of the Football League, Mr. Dunnett, to the Football League clubs? Is he aware that the letter is full of distortions and half-truths and, in some cases, downright lies? The letter states:
Football supporters will be the only people in the country
who have to carry identity cards. But everybody in this place has to carry identity cards. Does my hon. Friend think that Mr. Dunnett is deliberately misleading people, is simply in ignorance of the facts or is putting into practice the habit of misleading people that he no doubt learnt here as a Labour Member?

Mr. Moynihan: I regret that many of the statements made in that letter were misleading. I understand that a number have already been taken up, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn, Hatfield. I am certain that on another occasion I shall be able to respond in full to that letter, although it was not addressed to me.

Mr. Speaker: May we now proceed in good order?

Bathing Water

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the cost of full implementation of the European Economic Community directive on bathing water and the date when he expects the directive to be fully met.

Mr. Ridley: We have asked water authorities to assess the feasibility of bringing all their bathing waters up to European Community standards by 1995. The detailed .compliance programmes and the resulting cost to water consumers are not yet clear.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister confirm that the cost of complying with the bathing water quality directives and of getting rid of all the dangerous derogations in the drinking water quality directive will be about £2 billion? Will he also confirm that the report in The Daily Telegraph today that the Minister had achieved the agreement of Brussels to 1995 being a reasonable time by which we should comply with the bathing water directive is absolutely untrue? When I telephoned Brussels this afternoon, I was told that when officials there read the report in The Daily Telegraph they laughed because they felt that the reporter was not telling the truth all the time. Would not 1992 be a far more reasonable date?

Mr. Ridley: I am afraid that I am not responsible for what the hon. Gentleman reads in the newspapers.

However, I can give him some information. The Welsh water authority plans to spend £100 million to improve its bathing beaches in the next six years to bring all Welsh waters up to standard. That £100 million will have to be serviced and paid for by Welsh consumers. The total annual spend in England and Wales is currently over £100 million. Over that period, the hon. Gentleman can estimate the total cost of the operation, which does not include improving the quality of water so that it meets the drinking water standards, which will cost considerably more. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's figure was probably an underestimate of the total cost. I make it clear that these costs will have to be borne by water consumers and are nothing to do with privatisation.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is also great concern on the Conservative Benches about the condition of some of our beaches and that many of us will be watching with great care the debates on the Water Bill to ensure that the mechanisms in that measure provide as powerful an incentive to the new water authorities to clean up the beaches as those which exist under the present arrangements?

Mr. Ridley: I can, happily, assure my hon. Friend that the new arrangements, with the National Rivers Authority in place, are infinitely preferable to the older arrangements under which there was no proper control of the investment and standards achieved. I can also comfort my hon. Friend by telling him that the savage and massive cuts in sewerage investment made by the last Labour Administration have been completely reversed and that there are now major programmes in place to finance the necessary improvements.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep concern in the south-west about the condition of the beaches in the area? Is he aware that in that one area, 54 beaches are being investigated for pollution of the water, that 23 regularly fail to meet European bathing water standards and that there is a strong demand for the Government to provide adequate investment nationally to clean our water, our beaches and our environment rather than to follow the massively unpopular path of simply privatising for profit?

Mr. Ridley: We have got there already; the massive investment programme for which the hon. Gentleman calls is in place, restoring the cuts made by the Labour Government.

Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind that it costs money to clear up our seas and drinking water, may I ask my right hon. Friend to agree that it is wholly in character for the Opposition to be demanding that clean-up and, at the same time, complaining about increased charges to pay for it?

Mr. Ridley: The difficulty with the present situation is that Opposition Members are demanding higher standards, with which I agree, and at the same time denying the resulting financial consequences, which they try to blame on something else.

Dr. Cunningham: Why have the Government deliberately understated the scale of the problem of polluted beaches by designating only 391, when the Royal Commission on environmental pollution recognised that there were 600 beaches in Britain popularly used by


swimmers? Why did the Minister for Water and Planning stupidly mislead the public today on Radio 4 by saying that there was no health risk unless people could see sewage in the water? Will the Minister admit that colliform bacteria, salmonella, entero viruses and pathogenic micro-organisms are invisible to the naked eye?
Is it not clear that Government policy proposes insufficient control over private monopolies and can offer no deadline for the elimination of polluted beaches, as the chairman of the North-west water authority admitted to me in a recent letter? How can the Secretary of State say that the controls in his legislation are adequate when he has promised in advance immunity from prosecution to the private monopolies that he intends to set up? Will he confirm that all identified bathing waters will receive the same environmental quality objectives before privatisation takes place?

Mr. Ridley: The question on the Order Paper concerns meeting the European Community directive, and that is the question I answered. The number of beaches that qualify under that directive is contained in the numbers that were given in a written answer yesterday.
As to beaches that have not yet been cleaned, I confirm that swimming in contaminated water carries only a very small risk of disease. The system of controls—which the hon. Gentleman ought to understand by now, because he has been debating them long enough in Committee—is infinitely better than anything we have had before. The hon. Gentleman knows that to be the case, and I believe that even he agrees that if a programme of compliance is in place and adhered to, enforcement and prosecution should not take place until that programme is deviated from.

City Grants

Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for city grants his Department has received to date.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of funding his Department has made available to date for city grants.

Mr. Trippier: Since city grant was launched on 3 May 1988, my Department has received 86 applications, of which 31 have been approved, with a total grant requirement of £25 million.

Mr. Wilshire: The interest shown so far is proof that the Government are operating a good scheme and keeping their promises. Does my hon. Friend agree that action and achievements are the best test of success? If so, can he give the House any good news about the number of jobs created by the scheme? Also, does he have any evidence that Labour local authorities are behaving in their usual way, by whingeing and whining, rather than taking every opportunity to do all they can to help?

Mr. Trippier: Approved city grant projects will provide more than 500 homes and nearly 5,000 jobs, and will bring about 115 acres of land back into use. Labour authorities are improving, albeit slowly, but, in respect of economic development a number of them still suffer from delusions of adequacy. It is clear that they could play more of a proactive role with the private sector. Although they do not have to make a contribution, as they once did under

urban development grant, I have made it abundantly clear that we shall not consider a city grant application until it receives planning permission.

Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that businesses in Nottingham, where many of my constituents work, have been extremely successful in winning city grants, with less than £5 million of public money dragging in behind it more than £13 million of private money? That underlines the success of the city grant scheme and clearly demonstrates that Nottingham remains an attractive area for inward investment.

Mr. Trippier: I could not agree more. I have been overwhelmed by the number of applications that I have received from the private sector in Nottingham and the surrounding area. That success should be carefully considered by other areas that have not been so successful in securing city grants, and have not recognised that, as the private sector can now apply direct to the Department of the Environment, bureaucracy has been cut to a minimum.

Urban Development Corporations

Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times the urban development corporations have met jointly with his Department; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Trippier: Representatives of urban development corporations often meet Ministers and officials of my Department and discuss a wide range of issues.

Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister accept that the Government refused to accept the recommendation of the Employment Select Committee to widen the UDCs' remit or terms of reference? A report in The Economist on 11 February stated that the developers of Canary wharf can claim £1 billion in tax subsidy through enterprise zone concessions. The sum of £1 billion of taxpayers' money is equal to more than one year's expenditure from rates and balances by West Yorkshire authorities to provide services in that county area. What guarantees can the Minister give that UDC objectives will be better targeted towards the real needs of inner cities, and that public money will supplement local authority programmes rather than private developers?

Mr. Trippier: It is untrue to say that the Department of the Environment did not respond to the Select Committee on Employment and failed to recognise that there is a need to develop community activity and training. Our response clearly emphasised that, in the UDC set-up at that time, we were doing precisely that. As to enterprise zones, I did not notice any Labour Member holding back from making an application to the Department of the Environment for an enterprise zone in his or her constituency. As the Opposition did not divide the House at that time, I should have thought that they would recognise the benefits that have accrued.
On the hon. Gentleman's latter question, the main purpose of urban development corporations is to transform the landscape physically and to promote economic regeneration. That they are doing very successfully.

Mr. Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware of the new mood of confidence on Teesside where the urban development


corporation has announced five major projects, including a major scheme to put a barrage on the River Tees and to bring a Ministry of Defence agency to the area? When does he expect to be in the region to see these successes for himself? Does he agree that the role of urban development corporations is to concentrate on bringing the private sector into inner-city areas and to break the stranglehold that the public sector has had for too long?

Mr. Trippier: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. It is my intention to visit Teesside development corporation very soon. I hope that I will see my hon. Friend there. In addition to the successes that he has catalogued to the House, there is a joint venture with the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to develop the former Smiths dock in Middlesbrough into a centre of excellence in offshore technology. An estimated 1,000 new jobs will have been created by the end of 1989.

Mr. Fatchett: When the urban development corporation in Leeds is discussing important planning matters, such as a possible development by a Canadian organisation, which would transform a substantial area of south Leeds, why does it hold the planning discussions in private? Why should the press and the public not be invited to those meetings? Is it simply that the urban development corporations have something to hide?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman will know that many of the matters that are discussed in planning committees and in local authorities, too, are of a commercial and confidential nature. All development corporations would, in any event, liaise with the local authority and take its views on all planning matters. I must make the point to the House, if hon. Members are unaware of it, that we have appointed a number of Labour councillors to that development corporation, so they will have a say in what is going on.

Commons Commissioners

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to when the Commons Commissioners last met; and what was discussed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The Commons Commissioners' function is judicial. It does not require them to hold meetings.

Mr. Field: As I understand that the Commons Commissioners comprise barristers and solicitors of some seven years' standing, that the body costs £260,000 a year to run, with expenditure per case amounting to £712, and that just over seven cases per week are dealt with, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the organisation is offering value for money?

Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed. Since the Commons Commissioners were set up as a requirement of the Commons Registration Act 1965 they have settled 13,000 cases arising from disputes on the registration of 1·5 million acres of common land. While the cases in the Isle of Wight have all been settled, there are outstanding cases with which the Commons Commissioners are dealing, mostly in south Wales.

Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the plight of home owners whose houses were incorrectly registered as common land 24 years ago and who, since then, have had extraordinary difficulty in selling their houses?

Mrs. Bottomley: The Commons Commissioners are aware of the misregistration of houses to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. There are proposals to legislate on that when a suitable opportunity arises.

Mr. Skinner: Is there any way in which the commissioners can investigate the case of the cemeteries that Westminster city council sold? Would those cemeteries be regarded as common land? Could they be restored to the council under the general auspices of common land? If so, the Government should be doing something about it. There is a scandal or two at Westminster, not only with selling the cemeteries but involving the £1 million that the council paid to the chief executive. I think that there is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that has much to do with the question.

Mrs. Bottomley: No, Sir.

Public Health

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to seek to improve standards of litter removal, street cleaning, refuse collection, the control of dog mess and the extermination of rats and other rodents; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: These are local authority responsibilities. They have the necessary powers, and it is for them to ensure that proper provisions are made to meet local needs.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that uncleared dog mess, uncleansed streets and uncollected refuse are bound to lead to a serious deterioration in the environment, and to the breeding of rodents? Will she also bear in mind that rats reproduce from two to 800—sometimes more—in a year? Is she aware that the people of Ealing, including my constituents, suffered the effects of no cleansing of any kind for two weeks, while the Labour-controlled Ealing council has increased the rates by 35 per cent. and intends to reduce street cleansing? Will the Government force Ealing council to act on this matter?

Mrs. Bottomley: The Government are well aware of the predicament faced by the ratepayers of my hon. Friend's constituency where, even when there has been an £8 million increase in Government grant, they have to face enormous rate increases. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents would be much happier if Ealing council spent more time employing rat-catchers than setting up inquiries into the possible deprivation of Irish women in Ealing.

Mr. Bidwell: Can the Minister envisage a time when the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is likely to praise the Labour administration in Ealing? Is she aware that only recently, the Ealing authority won the London award for the cleanliness of its streets? Is she questioning the method of assessing these matters in the London area?

Mrs. Bottomley: We hope that all local authorities will give proper care and attention to environmental health, cleansing their streets, dealing with litter and enforcing proper rodent control.

Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend get together with her hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic to do something about the appalling amount of litter on motorways? Where does responsibility lie for cleaning up motorways? Does it rest entirely with local authorities? If not, will my hon. Friend ensure that more is done on that front?

Mrs. Bottomley: I think that the responsibility rests with my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic. We are committed to improving the cleanliness of our surroundings. We are further increasing the funding of the Tidy Britain Group which is investigating a number of projects and analysing the most effective way of cleaning up various areas—including transport areas—so that we can learn the lessons which I shall then draw forcefully to the attention of my close and hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister confirm the suspicion that the question of her hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) raised, which is that there has been an enormous increase in rodent infestation during the past 10 years? Does the hon. Lady consider that the Government-sponsored initiative UK 2000 has had the desired or desirable impact? Does not the experience of that initiative lead her to accept that local authorities should be supported, encouraged and assisted to achieve the cleaner Britain that market forces alone cannot achieve?

Mrs. Bottomley: Local authorities are receiving much more money this year. Their expenditure has risen to more than £28 billion, and they are receiving an extra £1.1 billion from the Government.
The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the role of UK 2000, which is involved in various environmental projects. The group entrusted to deal with litter and promote cleanliness is the Tidy Britain Group, which, we hope, will come forward with practical, realistic and effective programmes. As for rodent control, there seems to be evidence that the recent warm winters have resulted in a growth in the number of rats.

Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that, to deal with litter-dropping we need a much greater education programme, many more receptacles of an adequate size to contain it and a greater willingness by authorities to prosecute?

Mrs. Bottomley: Tackling litter requires the active commitment and enthusiasm of many Government Departments and, above all, groups within the community. Education and the provision of litter bins both play a key part. We are investigating whether further steps should be taken on enforcement.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Jeff Rooker.

Mr. Allan Roberts: It is an outrage.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are no fewer than eight Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. If I call Front Benchers all the time I shall never be able to call any Back Benchers.

Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order. I reacted to the hon. Gentleman's comment of "outrage".

Mr. Roberts: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take it afterwards. Mr. Jeff Rooker.

Nature Conservancy Council

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to discuss protection of wildlife and field sports with the Nature Conservancy Council.

Mr. Ridley: I recently agreed a concordat with the NCC which effectively protects both wildlife and field sports, as the hon. Member suggested.

Mr. Rooker: When the right hon. Gentleman met the Nature Conservancy Council, did he ask whether its recent grant of over £70,000 to the Kent Wildfowling Association was the first ever state handout for the purchase of land for blood sports? The next time that he meets his friends on the NCC, will he take up with them their policy of not giving grants to organisations that genuinely seek to protect and conserve nature by refusing to allow blood sports on those lands? Surely the gunmen of Kent can buy their own land.

Mr. Ridley: I understand that before offering grant the NCC satisfied itself that that grant would promote nature conservation and would give good value for money. I strongly support the general basis on which the NCC operates, which is that it is possible successfully to combine conservation and British field sports. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I bear no grudge against field sports.

Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the rubbish talked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who does not understand the countryside? Does he agree that the best way in which to protect wildlife is to encourage field sports?

Mr. Ridley: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right, and the NCC's concordat is testimony to the fact that it thinks so, too.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it true that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) plays in his car on his way home the sound of hounds in full—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is addressed to the Secretary of State, not to the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames).

Mr. Banks: But I want to know whether that is the general attitude. If the hon. Member for Crawley can go home playing the sound of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask a question like that.

Mr. Ridley: If my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) does as the hon. Genttleman claims, he is in very good company. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) believes that foxhunting should be abolished everywhere, except in his own constituency.

Councillors

Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's estimate of the number of local government councillors who are currently employed by other local authorities in positions which would he prohibited under proposed legislation.

Mr. Gummer: The number of councillors in any local authority to whom the restrictions will apply will depend on the extent to which they have been disregarding the tradition of the political neutrality of senior local authority staff. This information is not collected by my Department.

Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree, none the less, that there is clear evidence of widespread political abuse, particularly where a councillor is subsequently employed as an officer by another authority? Does he further agree that perhaps one of the saddest consequences has been a decline in the quality of chief officers in many authorities, with resulting damage to local government in general?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that if we want to encourage the best kind of local authority officers they must not feel that there are political reasons for the appointment of senior officers. Nor must they feel that people who are clearly involved in party political activities in one borough pretend to be independent in another.
I also believe that it is impossible for ordinary people to feel comfortable if they go to a local authority officer knowing that in another authority that officer takes party political views of a kind of which they do not approve.

Mr. Blunkett: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under the legislation being referred to, a psychiatric social worker receiving London weighting would fall into the category of "excluded from political activity"; would not be able to stand for election to say, the London borough of Richmond or a constituency such as the Isle of Wight; and would not be elected to Parliament for Surrey, South-West—unlike his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, to whom all those things apply?

Mr. Gummer: I confirm that in the country as a whole, people are quite clear. They do not believe that someone can be an independent officer on one authority, paid by the local ratepayers, and be a party political figure elsewhere. Universally, people condemn the Labour party for backing jobs for the boys and girls.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) could give the Government a great deal of advice about this abuse of local authority power? He could do that because Sheffield became the Socialist Republic of Sheffield and employed vast numbers of people from other local authorities. That practice spread throughout the north of England. That is an abuse and it is high time that it was stopped.

Mr. Gummer: I have made it quite clear that whether Conservatives or Socialists do that, the practice is wrong. It is clear to the rest of the country that the public are

wholly opposed to the way in which the Labour party is defending what has become corruption in local government.

Mr. Speaker: I shall now take the point of order of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that Back Benchers have rights—[Interruption.] and my talent is that I have been a Back Bencher longer than I have been a Front Bencher. However, your ruling today implies that Mr. Speaker decides which subjects the official Opposition Front Bench should respond to. Not only that, but Mr. Speaker decides which Front-Bench spokespersons respond to Ministers' replies. I would like some thoughts or responses about this point.
Your ruling also, it seems to me Mr. Speaker, rules out the possibility of the Opposition Front Bench being able to respond to a new factor that emerges during the Ministers' answers and which might have very significant implications, calling for a statement from the Opposition. The Front Bench must have that flexibility.
You were factually inaccurate, Mr. Speaker. There are not eight Opposition Front Benchers, there are only six. There are fewer shadow Ministers than there are Ministers at the Department of the Environment. Having had an indication through the usual channels, or through your assistant, that if I was brief on the first question, I would be called on the second—otherwise I would not have risen on the first question—it seems that you have treated the Opposition Front Bench unfairly. Very serious precedents are being set.

Mr. Speaker: First, let me say that every hon. Member must catch the eye of the Chair. However, I have an indication about the subjects in which the Front Bench would like to participate. As a general rule, it is only fair to Back Benchers that Front-Bench spokesmen should rise only once. I try not to call any hon. Member more than once at Question Time except perhaps the No. 1 spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is not the No. 1 spokesman and every time a Front-Bench spokesman rises, a Back-Bench Member is excluded.

Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We recognise that these are difficult decisions for you to have to take, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has an important point. It must surely be for Opposition Front Benchers to decide, in the light of answers and circumstances, who may want to seek to catch your eye—[Interruption.] Shut up, you fool.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that that was not directed at me.

Dr. Cunningham: No, Mr. Speaker. I should have said "Shut up, you hon. Gentleman."
Perhaps the best way to resolve these matters would be for us to discuss them with you in private.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very good suggestion.

Points of Order

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning, outside this House, the Secretary State for Education and Science announced his first decision to nationalise schools and bring them into central control. The announcement concerned two schools—one in Tameside and the other in Skegness. Although the policy has flopped, and most of the very few schools that sought to opt out of the current arrangements and into central control are to be found in Conservative areas, this policy was announced by the Government as a flagship policy. Can you, Mr. Speaker, say whether you have received from the Secretary of State for Education and Science any indication that he is willing to make a statement to this House, as we have requested? If not, is it not a gross abuse of the House that the Secretary of State is unwilling to make a statement about a policy that has failed; although he claimed that it was crucial to the Government's approach?

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I am not known for being hesitant in bearing good news to this House. The news this morning was very good indeed, in that these are the first two grant-maintained schools. If I am expected to make a statement every time I announce that a school is becoming grant-maintained, I will be monopolising the time of the House, because this policy will be very successful.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of these schools, though not in my constituency, is in a neighbouring constituency. Is it fair that this decision was made without consulting the Members concerned?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: When it comes to school reorganisations or amalgamations, the procedure is that the individuals are informed, as they and the governors and heads of the schools were this morning. We have followed the procedures.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Today we have a Bill under a guillotine motion. I will call one hon. Member from the Government side of the House. Mr. Thurnham.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are very pleased indeed with the announcement this morning about those two schools, and we look forward very much to an announcement about St. James's Church of England school in Bolton.

Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the legitimate interest of Members on both sides of the House in the decisions of the Secretary of the State indicates the need for a statement. What we now know is that the Secretary of State, instead of doing what would be sensible and rational-make one announcement of all his decisions for 1989—is trying to drip-feed these decisions out—[Interrupion.] Oh, yes, he is trying to drip-feed these decisions out to suggest that a policy that has flopped is

some kind of success. Can we have an undertaking from the Secretary of State that when these decisions are being made he will announce them to this House?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that eight or nine days ago I raised a point of order about the fact that I had placed in the Table Office a question to the Foreign Secretary. I asked for information about the movements of the Foreign Secretary in relation to the Manx Government. That question was transferred, for some reason best known to other people, to the Home Office. The Minister said to me that when he had the answer he would let me know. Well, I have had the answer from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, telling me that the Home Secretary has met people. That is very interesting, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.
Since this is the correct day to table questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I have today retabled the question, with slightly altered wording in order to get it through the machinery. Will you, Mr. Speaker, kindly take it upon yourself to see that, this time, I get an answer from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as to the activities of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for which Minister answers questions, but I can say to the hon. Member, as I think I indicated to him, that the Isle of Man comes under the Home Office.

Mr. Holt: It does not.

Mr. Speaker: Well, that was my understanding. I will not enter into a debate about it, because I might be wrong.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State said very clearly to this House a few moments ago that Members of Parliament from the Tameside area had been informed of his decision concerning Audenshaw school. As one of those Members—I speak for my right hon. Friend also—I have to say that we were not so informed by the Secretary of State.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 10 MARCH

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Graham Riddick
Mrs. Audrey Wise
Mr. Neil Thorne

BILL PRESENTED

COMPANY DONATIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES

Mr. Ken Eastham, supported by Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Robert Litherland, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Eric S. Heller, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and Mr. George Howarth, presented a Bill to give shareholders and trade unions the right to block company donations to political parties: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 February and to be printed. [Bill 82].

Employment Age Discrimination

Mr. Barry Field: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish age discrimination in employment.
The aim of my Bill is to abolish age discrimination in employment. I hope that it will assist those who are in if not the evening then the late afternoon of life to find jobs. An information note issued by Hay MSL Management Consultants in November 1987 showed that, where an age was specified, 88·5 per cent. of advertisements showed an upper limit of 40 whereas only 2·5 per cent. advertised for candidates aged 46 or over. A recent report in The Sunday Times showed that over half the advertisements carried an age specification and not one carried an age requirement for the over–50s.
The Sunday Mail has run a long campaign about age discrimination, and it is a salutary thought that, at the last general election, the average age of Members of Parliament was 49. It is worth pondering the fact that a large number of Members of Parliament would never get the opportunity to be interviewed for a position here were they to seek employment in the normal market place. I am glad to be able to present the Bill from the Conservative Benches, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister practises, as always, what she preaches and she has started Sir Leon Brittan, at the age of 49, on a second career in Europe. We look forward tomorrow to learning that William Hague has been elected in his place in the Richmond, Yorks constituency.
In The Guardian on Saturday 4 February, a typical advertisement placed by a leading industrial company advertised for an industrialist journalist in Runcorn. It stated:
If you are an experienced professional journalist with industrial experience and are aged 25–40, this challenging opportunity will appeal to you.
To fit in leaving school, having taken A—levels, training as a journalist and obtaining industrial experience by the age of 25, one would have to move with great speed. A recent survey by the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services found that 56 per cent. of employers admit that they tend to recruit from the under–40 age group. What employers are really saying is that they want an 18–year—old with 30 years' experience.
There has been a steady decline in the economic activity of the over–55s. The sharpest drop has been among men aged 60 to 64, where employment fell from 83 per cent. to 54 per cent. between 1971 and 1985. There are some good reasons for this decline such as improved occupational pension schemes, with provsion for early retirement. Above all, until recently, it was seen as an act of social and moral generosity to give up one's job and retire early so as to create a vacancy for a young person or even a school leaver.
All that has changed rapidly. Because of the succeess of the Government's economic and industrial policies, unemployment is falling fast. The overtime in manufacturing industry last month, at 14·8 million hours per week, was the highest since January 1980.
An even greater problem facing the nation is the decline in the birth rate after the boom of the 1960s. In the 1980s there were 4·7 million 17 to 21-year-olds. By 1995–96, that figure will fall by 3·4 million, a drop of 1·3 million, bringing that age group down from 8·4 per cent. to 5·4 per

cent. of the total population. In its evidence to the Employment Select Committee, the CBI forecast that the percentage of men and women within 10 years of retirement, who made up 28·7 per cent. of the work force in 1987, will rise to 31·2 per cent. by 1995.
According to the rules of the House, a private Member's Bill may not amend taxation, but I must express the hope that, in his Budget, the Chancellor will honour our long-standing pledge to abolish the earnings limit for pensioners. About £85 million in lost revenue, to allow pensioners to earn, and to keep their pension, would remove a long-running sore affecting those among the nation's "grey power" who have the energy and the inclination to continue to work. This measure, coupled with raising the level at which people commence paying national insurance contributions from £43 to £55 a week, would not only be a natural adjunct to my Bill but, remarkably, would leave the Treasury £5 million better off.
Grey power is the force of the future. For far too long the country has lacked an understanding of the rich, untapped reservoir in the over-40s. Older employees are often grateful for job opportunities. They bring stability, experience, loyalty and dedication. What they do not bring are baby problems, boyfriend problems or girlfriend problems. Very often, they are halfway through their mortgage repayments, so financial pressures do not make them conscious of the next pay rise. They act as a stabilising influence and have highly defined ideas and ideals about customer service, customer satisfaction, employee loyalty and a conscientious approach to all their duties. In London, we have all had experience of the shop assistant who is too busy varnishing her nails or telling her chum who she danced with last night to find time to serve paying customers. We have all experienced the surly, monosyllabic young man who greets all customers with, "Yeah, what yer want?".
This Bill is Parliament's answer to Phyllosan. It will prevent age discrimination in employment and ensure that all employees and job applicants are only as old as they feel and not as old as they are made to feel—and feel unwanted at that. Like Phyllosan, the Bill will "fortify the over-40s". It will free the over-40s, the over-50s and the over-60s to continue to work for their benefit and for the benefit of our nation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Irvine Patnick, Mr. David Davis, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Tony Favell, and Mrs. Maureen Hicks.

EMPLOYMENT AGE DISCRIMINATION

Mr. Barry Field accordingly presented a Bill to abolish age discrimination in employment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 March and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order., Mr. Speaker, I have an important point of order to raise on this Bill because, clearly, a large number of hon. Members have a vested interest in it. I would like your ruling that people in the 40, 50, 60 and 70 age range—because of that vested interest and the direct pecuniary interest raised by the Bill—will not be prevented from voting on it, since that would give it no chance at all.

Mr. Speaker: The Bill was not opposed and we did not have a vote on it.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL

(ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Resolved,

That the Report [21 February] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in its resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:
That—

(1) the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be as shown in the Table set out below;
(2) on the allotted day given under the Order [13th February] to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading each part of the proceedings shall, subject to the provisions of that Order, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE


Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


New Clause No. 1 (Authorised publication) Amendment No. 9
5 pm


New Clause No. 2 (Public interest defence), Amendments 8, 1 to 7 and 13
6.30 pm


Amendment 10
7.15 pm


New Clause No. 3 (Protection of personal information), Amendments 11 and 12, remaining proceedings on consideration
8 pm


Third Reading
10 pm

Orders of the Day — Official Secrets Bill

[ALLOTTED DAY]

Mr. Speaker: Bill, as amended, to be considered.
The first new clause to be debated is new clause No. 1, with which it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just read out "Bill, as amended". Is there an amended reprinted version of the Bill, because nothing is available in the Vote Office?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that one word was changed.

Mr. Rooker: Therefore, the Bill we are considering is not "as amended". A version of the Official Secrets Bill, which has been passed by the Committee of this House, is not available for hon. Members to consider on Report. That is a consequence of the guillotine. If a Bill is not available—it does not matter whether the alteration is one word, one paragraph, or one clause—you have no right, Mr. Speaker, to put to the House that we carry on with these proceedings today.

Mr. Speaker: The Bill is available at the Table. I understand that this is the authoritative copy.

Mr. Rooker: Where is ours? There is nothing available for hon. Members. You, Mr. Speaker, are a Member. There is nothing available for hon. Members. Are we expected to debate and vote on a Bill which is not actually before us? We would not allow that in local government or anywhere else. There is no urgency. The Bill does not have to be debated today. We have no right to pass legislation that is not before the House. You cannot ask us to rely on a copy that the Clerk has on the Table. Are we supposed to queue up in rota and pass it around the House?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I move that the House stand adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Business Committee discussed the timetable. That was agreed and the matter was not raised there.

Mr. Robin Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter was never before the Business Committee. The only question discussed at that Business Committee was the timetable for the proceedings on the remaining stages of the Bill. The question whether the Bill, as amended, would be available for hon. Members was not raised. In fairness, that matter was not raised by the Opposition or by the Government. The assumption was, of course, that the Bill would be available to hon. Members.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the Business Committee report, which the House has accepted on the nod, as it were, does not contain any reference to the alteration. You mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the Business Committee report, but there is no reference in that report to the alteration to the Bill. Therefore, even using the two


documents—the unaltered Bill and the Business Committee report—would not provide hon. Members with the necessary documentation. I should have thought that it would be a breach of Standing Orders for you, Mr. Speaker, to submit to the House the Bill, as amended, when clearly it is not available as amended. It may appear a relatively small matter, but there is an important principle. We deal with important legislation. When legislation passes through the House, it applies to every citizen. Surely we must set standards of conduct which are above every possible criticism. Omitting a word can be extremely serious, and the House should accept the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to adjourn until printed copies are available for every hon. Member.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am conscious that in your intitial response you said that you had been informed that there had been only one word altered in the Bill. I want to submit to you the importance of that. It would be intolerable were a situation to arise where you had to judge whether the difference between the Bill presented to Committee and the Bill coming out of Committee were a significant one. With respect, it is neither for you, Mr. Speaker, nor for anyone else to decide whether an amendment is important. It is for the House to work on the assumption that all amendments have some significance and, therefore, that the Bill will have been changed substantially by any amendment, which I believe is comparatively true in this case.
We are suffering the problem of having not a guillotine, but an absurdly rushed one. Last week we had two consecutive days of discussion under the guillotine and we have moved on to Report and Third Reading within a week of the Committee stage being completed. That is an affront to the House and it makes the whole operation appear to be demonstrably as shabby and second-rate as it will be if the Government persist in going on with it under the circumstances.
I note that the Leader of the House is here and I hope that he will listen—

Mr. Skinner: He is not bothered.

Mr. Hattersley: I wonder whether the Home Secretary could draw the Leader of the House's attention to the fact that we are discussing matters directly relevant to him. The Leader of the House should know that the House is now put in an intolerable position. If we pursue this issue of principle and procedure we shall cut into the time allowed for the Bill to be debated on Report. If the Leader of the House appreciates the importance of the discussion that will now take place it is possible for him to assure us that at 10 o'clock or at some other time he will add on however long this procedure discussion takes, so that we do not lose any of the extremely limited time we have for Report and Third Reading.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen:: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are legislating for a generation; we are not legislating for the next five years. The question is whether the Bill will have the authority and legitimacy that will be necessary if prosecutions are to succeed in front of juries. Any juryman who saw our proceedings now would not feel the proper sense of respect and authority that the law-making process

should have. Nothing will be damaged if we delay consideration of the Bill for another week or fortnight. I suggest that those who wish to protect our proceedings and wish to give proper delay and solemnity to the
consideration of the Bill will be helping the Government and future Governments to secure that authority which, currently, the Bill lacks.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Even if this were a relatively minor piece of proposed legislation, I would argue, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Rooker), that the principle remains the same. You should also bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this is an extremely controversial Bill and you are aware that it has been much contested. That is all the more reason why the documents that we have before us on Report should be accurate.
I hope that I can secure the Home Secretary's attention, as the Government have made much about the rule of law, but I submit that the rule of Parliament is also important and relevant. We are expected to debate on Report a controversial Bill which, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, is likely to stay on the statute book for many years to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has already explained to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill is defective. Therefore, it would be wrong to proceed on Report to discuss it, especially as there is no urgency for it, for all the reasons that you know, Mr. Speaker. In those circumstances I hope that you will agree to reflect on the matter, as it would be wrong for us to proceed on this basis.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The suspense is killing us—what is the one word that has been changed, or is that an official secret?

Mr. Speaker: It might be helpful to know that. It is not infrequent, when a Bill has been amended by a change of word, as in this case, for the whole Bill not to be reprinted. It might be for the convenience of the House if I say that the change in Committee was made to clause 2(2)(a) on page 2 when
prejudices the capability of
was changed to
damages the capability or

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member
for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Standing Order No. 69 refers to the report of a Bill from Committee to the whole House and states:
At the close of the proceedings of a committee of the whole House on a bill, the chairman shall report the bill forthwith to the House, and when amendments shall have been made thereto, a day shall be appointed for taking the bill as amended into consideration".
That has not occurred. The Government have been exceedingly sloppy about this affair and they have been caught out by the Opposition. As you know only too well, Mr. Speaker, it is not your job to support the Executive when they have made mistakes. They have obviously made an error, and in view of that I believe that the motion that I originally put, namely that the debate stand adjourned until further notice, should apply.

4 pm

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that the House knows the scale of the single word to which we refer, it is clear that it is not a minor matter, but a matter on which there was considerable discussion in Committee. The Government sought to claim that they were making a big concession by agreeing to the alteration of that word. Having made that big concession with which they were seeking to curry favour, for them to come before the House without having bothered to change the Bill is an important issue. The only proper way for the matter to be dealt with is for the debate to be adjourned.
The Leader of the House has been present, but has not said anything. As the person responsible for the situation, he should ask for the House to be adjourned. As everyone has said, it is perfectly possible for the Bill to be discussed next week or the week after without any damage to the discussion. It would inconvenience only the Government, and the Government have inconvenienced us by producing a defective Bill. I appeal to the Leader of the House to get you out of the scrape, Mr. Speaker, as these are points of order for you, by admitting the folly of the Government and agreeing to withdraw the Bill until another day.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you say who is responsible for ensuring that that amendment is made to the Bill before the House considers the amended Bill on Report? Am I right in believing that, far from its being the responsibility of the Government, it is the responsibility of the authorities of the House and that Opposition Members who are saying that the Bill should not proceed today are attacking the authorities of the House, and the matter has nothing whatever to do with the Government?

Mr. Speaker: The authorities of the House have carried out the normal practice. As I have already stated, when very minor amendments have been made to a Bill it has not been the practice for the entire Bill to be reprinted.

Dr. David Owen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you said inadvertently that it was a minor amendment, and that on reflection you would agree that it is a significant matter. It is not the case of an "and" or "if" being missed out in an earlier drafting and then reinserted. The amendment goes to the core of the Bill.
We had a major debate, and it is still in contention that the word "damage" is insufficient and should be prefaced by the word "seriously". Far from its being minor, it is a significant amendment. We all understand how the error has occurred, but whether it is the responsibility of the Government or the authorities of the House, the ultimate responsiblity must lie with the Leader of the House.
The Leader of the House faces the clear fact that the Bill is now not in order. It is not "as amended". Were this normal legislation, there would be agreement on both sides of the House not to push the point in a pedantic way, but the Bill is deeply offensive to many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Having discussed an important issue on which the full procedures of the House have not been fulfilled, and having faced a guillotine motion on a constitutional Bill of great significance, surely

the House is within its rights in demanding that the Bill is not proceeded with today and is brought back at another time.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You explained to the House most helpfully that the Bill as originally presented has been amended by the change of one word on page 2—[Interruption.]—it would be more courteous and helpful to the House if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) allowed me to complete my sentence. Therefore, since the Bill was published and since Second Reading, the Bill has been altered by one word. As I understand it, you, Mr. Speaker, outlined the normal practice on occasions when such a minor alteration is made. It has nothing to do with the substance of the alteration, but involves the number of words that are altered. One word has been altered and it is the normal custom of the House to continue with proceedings on the Bill without reprinting it. I believe that we should continue the normal procedures of the House and get on with considering the Bill. There are important issues to be discussed and I believe that we should not delay any longer.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House is correct. Perhaps I should correct what I said about its being a minor amendment. I am not concerned with the importance of the word, which I accept is a major issue. The amendment is minor in that it alters only one word.
We passed the timetable motion a few moments ago and we are now in timetable time. It would be wise if the House were to get on with the debate.

Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will notice that, apart from the Leader of the House, not one right hon. or hon. Member who has spoken has not expressed concern about the situation. I reflect my own concern about biting into the time allowed by the guillotine. Might I suggest that it is a House of Commons matter. Right hon. and hon Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern, and the way to resolve it is for you, Mr. Speaker, to accept the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) so that the House can decide whether it wishes to proceed and then we can get on with the timetable and the other issues.

Mr. Speaker: I am not able to accept a dilatory motion at that stage. I quote the motion passed by the House on 13 February:
No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on the Bill should be made on an allotted day, except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
I am not empowered to accept the dilatory motion. The House is in some difficulty. Technically, the Bill should have been reprinted, but, as I have already said, when amendments of a minor kind, in terms of the number of words, have been made in the past, it has always been the practice not to have the Bill reprinted.

Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might not the simple answer to the problem be for you to accept a manuscript amendment to the Bill so that we can debate it?

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should proceed now.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that there is a question whether there is a Bill that has been amended for the House to debate. If the Bill has not been printed, it is at least arguable, in the light of the Standing Order that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) read out, that we are not in a position to debate the Bill. We were advised that such a Bill would appear before us, but it has also been said that the amendment is minor in terms of the number of words, but it is a major issue in that there is no debate on Report if that amendment has not been passed. As that amendment is the sole change that has been made, the Bill should have passed straight to another place. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a Bill that we can debate today.

Mr. Speaker: The Committee reported some days ago, the Bill at the Table is the authentic text.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is in some difficulty because we are really on the timetable motion. I shall hear the points of order, but they are taking time out of the debate.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that all those who had spoken were opposed to the Bill proceeding. That is simply because the rest of us were quite satisfied to proceed, so we did not bother speaking.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What seems to me to be most iniquitous is that many of us have been prevented from taking part in a serious discussion which is novel to many right hon. and hon. Members. No one doubts that the points of order are serious, but we are aware of immediacy of the guillotine—never has that word been so precise as it is today—so we are nervous about raising points of order on what everyone understands is a serious matter. I ask for your guidance and consideration, Mr. Speaker. When such discussions legitimately occur, should there not be some mechanism by which the time lost through points of order is made available for debating the Bill, or it will be impossible to raise points of order?

Mr. Speaker: That is not something over which I have control. That would be a matter for the usual channels, which would be the best way of dealing with it.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appears that the guillotine motion refers to a "Bill". The argument is that at the moment there is no such Bill before the House. If there is no such Bill before the House, the guillotine motion cannot apply and, therefore, you can accept a dilatory motion. I should like your ruling on that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect. The Bill is on the Table.

Mr. Dobson: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman. There is only one Bill, which is the Bill on the Table. The Bills available in the Vote Office are copies of that Bill.

Mr. Dobson: We do not have access to that Bill, which contains the change that we consider to be significant and

substantial and a material alteration of the nature of the Bill and the requirements in it. In those circumstances, such a Bill is not before the House in the way that it should be under the guillotine motion and, therefore, the guillotine motion cannot apply and you, Mr. Speaker, should be able to accept a dilatory motion.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter could be settled easily if you could quote a precedent, which I am sure is available, for such a set of circumstances. You said that it is common practice, but I am not sure that many right hon. and hon. Members know about that. If you are able to quote a precedent, I am sure that the matter could be settled immediately.

Mr. Speaker: I should need notice of that.

Mr. Rooker: Further to the point of order Mr. Speaker. I am raising this point only because, while listening to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) move his ten-minute Bill, I started to look at the amendments in detail. It suddenly dawned on me that I had only the marked copy of the Bill that I used last week and I thought the Bill had been reprinted. I went to the Vote Office and the clerk kindly looked for the new Bill at least three times because I told him that the Bill must have been reprinted because it contained an alteration.
I was reluctant to raise a point of order because of the guillotine motion. However, I realise that we are discussing a Bill that is not before us so I do not see why I or anybody else should hesitate.
You might argue, Mr. Speaker—and the Clerks would agree—that we have passed the motion for the allocation of time and the Business Committee motion. The Business Committee motion makes no mention of the fact that the Bill to which the timetable applies is not printed and before the House. The second motion on the Order Paper says:
Official Secrets Bill [allotted day]: As amended, to be considered.
When you read out that motion, Mr. Speaker, I interrupted you, because I wished to challenge the words
as amended, to be considered.
The House should decide whether we wish so to consider. There is no motion for us to approve which says that, "Notwithstanding the requirements of Standing Orders of the House that the Bill shall be printed and before the House, the House agrees to carry on." If there is a majority in favour of that, there is nothing the minority can do. We are demanding the right to decide—the right to lose—whether to continue in this unconstitutional way.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question of a dilatory motion is covered in Standing Order No. 34(2). You, Mr. Speaker, said that you were not entitled to accept a dilatory motion under the terms of the guillotine motion. Hon. Members are saying that the copies of the Bill as presented do not conform to the requirements of the guillotine motion and that the Bill should be rejected. Under those circumstances, you would be able to accept a motion "That the Question be now put", because that is not within the terms of Standing Order No. 34(2), which lists dilatory actions as motions, for example, for the Adjournment of the House or debate, or for the Chair of a Committee such as yourself, Mr. Speaker, to report progress.
We have a solution if you, Mr. Speaker, can accept a motion, "That the Question be now put". The copies of the


Bill are not adequate because they do not represent the guillotine motion that has been put before the House. That excludes the terms of the guillotine motion which you say inhibits you from accepting the motion for the Adjournment of the House proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I should have thought that that would have been of help to you.
From both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, you have heard concerns expressed by hon. Members who feel that the debate should not take place. Hon. Members should be provided with an opportunity to vote, because it would be outrageous for the Government to ignore what, to most hon. Members, is a clear error by them and simply bulldoze the error through the House and use their majority to trample on the rights of Members of Parliament. Surely we should have an opportunity for a vote.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can probably save the time of the House. There is no motion before the House now. We have passed the timetable motion and I was about to propose the new clause, which would be a motion before the House.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I suggest that you invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to explain in practical terms what would be lost if the matter were delayed for a week or a fortnight? It is all very well for him to say that in his opinion the technicalities are in order and that as practical people we should disregard a technical difficulty in the Bill as it now stands.
This legislation for a generation has been bashed through on the guillotine. If we delayed a little longer it would provide time for the proper procedural measures to be taken and would give the public an opportunity to reflect on the Bill. They cannot do that if there is not sufficient time between the various stages. Surely my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can explain to the House and to those of us who usually support him whether anything serious would happen if we were to delay for a week or a fortnight.

Mr. Wakeham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), I should say that when I spoke earlier—my hon. Friend may not have been listening—I supported your ruling that things are proceeding in order and in accordance with our custom. If the House believes that our long-established customs for the way in which we proceed are not satisfactory and should be looked at, we can arrange for the Procedure Committee to look at that to see whether changes should be made. However, as I understand it, we are proceeding in accordance with the established procedures of the House and we should get on with it.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What the Leader of the House has just said is grossly misleading. If we proceed on the basis on which the

Government have presented the Bill to the House today, the Bill will go to another place in this defective form. It is not merely a question of what has happened here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can probably help the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill will not go to another place in that form because the alteration is in the Bill.

Mr. Foot: The change has not been made in the Bill before the House. Therefore, what the Leader of the House has proposed in not a remedy. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is no fault on the part of the Government in bringing a defective Bill before us adds to the offence. It certainly does not ease the problems.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me try to deal with the matter. The Bill contains the alteration. The alteration is not made in the copies of the Bill. That is the factual position.

Mr. John Gorst: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I have sympathy with the arguments expressed by Opposition Members. However, can you advise me whether in supporting them I am challenging your ruling, which I would not wish to do, or whether I am merely challenging the Government, which I would be prepared to do?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman would be challenging a ruling that I had made. I repeat to the House that this has been our custom for many years. When a small alteration, in terms of words, is made, it has not been our custom and practice to reprint the copies of the Bill.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said earlier in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and myself, when we were talking about a vote on the matter, that there were some difficulties. I am sure that you appreciate that it is possible for the Question not to be put. Only a few Fridays ago, you dealt with a matter by saying that the Question, That the Question be not now put—complicated though it is—can be put to the House. The Leader of the House is present and it is quite possible for that Question to be put. I suggest, notwithstanding other advice, that as we have had a recent example and as there was another example when such a matter arose in 1985, it is possible for the Question, That the Question be not now put, to be proceeded with. If we lose the vote, so be it, for it will show that this bulldozing Government have had their way again, notwithstanding the fact that they have not even printed the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: On that Friday, there was a Question before the House. At the moment, there is not. We have only about 40 minutes left, so we should proceed.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What we are concerned about—and the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) clearly shares this concern—is whether there is a precedent for a significant change to be made to a Bill and then for the Bill not to be reprinted if it is subject to a guillotine motion. On precedents, we should like to know how many words would need to be amended and what significance they would need to carry before the precedent would not be binding. We find it difficult to imagine that, whereas it is possible to have a substantial number of minor changes to which no hon. Members would take offence and which


they would be willing to nod through, the proposal before us is a substantial change which has been the subject of considerable argument and is likely to be the subject of further argument. What are the precedents that bind you, Mr. Speaker, to make the ruling that you are making today?

Sir Ian Gilmour: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, the question of precedents is important and I had the impression that you intended to brush my point aside. We do guide our affairs by precedent. I wonder whether in the interval since I asked my first question the authorities of the House have been able to find a precedent because that would assist the House. I hope that we shall hear, sooner or later, of the precedents that are guiding you.

Mr. Speaker: Going hack to the days when I had different responsibilities, I can say that it has, for many years, been our custom and practice to operate in this way. It is nothing new. I do not have the precedents to hand immediately, but they are being looked up now.

Mr. Adley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have given the impression that between Committee and Report a Bill is not normally reprinted. Surely it is normally reprinted with the changes made. Am I not right in thinking that it has not been reprinted on this occasion because we had a Committee of the whole House and because there simply was not time?

Mr. Speaker: Those are not the reasons. Sensibly, the issue was to do with the costs of reprinting.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty is that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has not given the House his guidance on the question of the time between Committee and Report. It is, of course, true that, with their vast majority, the Government have steamrollered all hon. Members who disagree with them on this non-party Bill and there is no doubt that that is their privilege. But surely the purpose of delay between Committee and Report is to allow the public as a whole to write to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to say, "Mr. Hurd, we notice that in your arguments with those disagreeable Tory rebels you managed to squash them on every occasion with your large and honourable, but ignorant, vote. But, as a matter of fact, I think you lost the argument on some of those issues." If one does not have a sufficient delay between Committee and Report, one cannot have any proper public interest and comment on these matters. That is just another example of the damaging effects of bashing through such legislation in a hurry and with a guillotine.

Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will agree, irrespective of your rulings, that this has been a wholly legitimate series of points of order. But I hope you also agree that the House has been put in an intolerable situation. We have virtually lost the debate which would have been initiated by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). [Interruption.] It is no good for the Patronage Secretary to say "Hear, hear." He is responsible for the confusion and I have no doubt that he welcomed it, as the Government's technique throughout the Bill has been to postpone and avoid as much debate as possible.
I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, for another ruling, which does not simply concern the availability of the Bill. You make your judgments on precedent, not on custom and practice—which are what the Prime Minister is determined to stamp out in British employment. I hope that you will tell us how many words amount to a significant alteration. Is it one, five, 11, 27, or whatever number there happens to be when the appropriate Secretary of State has forgotten to make a reprint?
My principal point is that I hope that the Leader of the House will be agreeable to another procedure, which I put to him through you, Mr. Speaker. It would be intolerable to the House and to the Leader of the House if the first crucial debate were to be extinguished. The Business Committee should be asked to sit again and agree to extend the debate simply by the amount of time that we have spent on legitimate points of order. If the Leader of the House will not agree to do that, he will not make the slightest concession to the wholly legitimate views of the House and the wish to conduct the debate in good order and with proper, democratic discussion.

Mr. Speaker: That is a helpful suggestion. We should now get on with the debate. If the usual channels were to discuss how we may get out of this considerable difficulty, the whole House would be satisfied.

Mr. Wakeham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am perfectly content that we should have discussions through the usual channels.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, we shall proceed with the debate on new clause 1.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice. Page 4 of the Bill refers to the "Security Service Act 1988". There is, of course, no such Security Service Act of that year, so the Bill is clearly incorrect. I assume that it was a slip and I wonder whether a Bill is in good faith when there is no such Act.

Mr. Speaker: It is entirely correct. I think we must get on. New clause No. 1, with which it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9. Mr. Aitken—

Mr. Shepherd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not understand your ruling that it is correct that there is a Security Service Act of 1988. There is no such Act.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman please say that again?

Mr. Shepherd: I understand from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that there is a Security Service Act 1988. There is no such Act. It was only discussed this year, it is still a B:11 and it has not yet gone to the House of Lords.

Mr. Speaker: The date refers to the year in which the Bill was presented. That is another drafting convention.

Mr. Shepherd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is intolerable that the Bill refers to an Act that does not exist. We are told that that is no drafting mistake, but an amendment was tabled—[Interruption.] There can be no Security Service Act 1988 because no such Act was passed in 1988. An amendment was tabled to correct that, but the Government would not accept it and the correction


does not appear in the Bill. Therefore, we are trying to legislate or to make judgments on a Bill which is misprinted and which refers to an Act that does not exist.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that this is always the practice. The Bill was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 30 November 1988.

Mr. Shepherd: It is not an Act. The point is that the Bill refers to the Security Service Act 1988, but there is no such Act.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman were to discuss this with the experts at the Table, he would probably be able to get an answer.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Eric S. Helfer: rose—

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have already spent half an hour on this and the Leader of the House has made a helpful suggestion, which would be for the convenience of the whole House. He is prepared to discuss this through the usual channels.

Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were kind enough to say that my suggestion that the Business Committee should meet would be helpful and now you have described the Leader of the House as helpful. The only way in which the House could be helped would be if the Leader of the House agrees to an immediate meeting of the Business Committee—the first vote should come in 30 minutes. If the House is to be treated sensibly and with respect, the Leader of the House should say now that he is prepared to have a Business Committee meeting so that we may regain the 45 minutes that you, at least, believe has been spent on legitimate points of order. I ask the Leader of the House now to say that he will have an immediate meeting with the Business Committee so that the lost time can be regained.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Amery.

Mr. Julian Amery: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I urge the Leader of the House to take those points seriously? The new clause that I hope to move if the Bill is, by your ruling, still in order is of considerable importance. It is an issue of principle. I do not think that we would even be discussing the reform of the Official Secrets Act 1911 had it not been for a dispute about the principle on which the authorisation for publicaton could be given.
We have had the unusual occurrence in the House that assurances given—in good faith, I know—by the Minister of State, Home Department have apparently been repudiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so that what stands in the Official Report at the moment may or may not still have validity. If it has not, we must have an explanation of why that is so. I do not see how, under the timetable motion, it would make sense for

myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends—and, indeed, hon. Members of all parties who share my view—to try to discuss the new clause.

Mr. Budgen: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest that it would not be useful to have a discussion between the usual channels while the House continues its discussion of the Bill? The fact is that the most sustained criticism of the Bill has come from Conservative Benches so it would be unwise for the Chief Whip to pretend that he represents the views of Conservative Members who disagree with the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) disagrees with an important part of the Bill and it would be wrong for his objection to be disregarded because of some private discussion between the Chief Whips. If the House were to rise for even half an hour or three quarters of an hour, all hon. Members who are genuinely interested could discuss the matter. However, if the Chief Whips get together, they may do a deal that they cannot honour.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Leader of the House.

Mr. Wakeham: We are getting ourselves into some difficulties. I respond to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who wishes to know what can be done to reallocate time and to make the best use of it so that we can have the best discussions. I sympathise totally with that proposition. I suggest that if the House gets on with the first amendment on the Amendment Paper—new clause 1—I can immediately have discussions through the usual channels to decide the best way to proceed. If the best way to proceed is to call a meeting of the Business Committee, I shall favour that, but I want to have discussions about the best way to deal with the difficulties. We should not be told what the answer is before we put the question.

Mr. Hattersley: The Leader of the House must understand that what he is proposing is not a solution. By the time the usual channels—whatever they may be—have met and had their discussions we shall be into our first vote and the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) will not have had the chance to move his new clause in the manner that it justifies.
I remind the Leader of the House that he need not be so fearful. He has a majority on the Business Committee and if the Committee meets, the Government's will will prevail. My proposition has the implicit suggestion that the Government's majority on that Committee will behave reasonably. Therefore, I ask him again to agree that it should meet. It could meet in five or ten minutes' time and return to the House with a new motion which, I am sure, will be carried unanimously. The right hon. Member for Pavilion can then move his new clause properly and in the way in which it deserves and the whole House can proceed in good order.

Mr. Amery: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this again. I do not think that the House would find it acceptable if this controversial new clause, which is, I know, embarrassing to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, were to be dismissed in a matter of 20 minutes. If we are to proceed, which is of course a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide, it is


necessary that the new clause that I wish to move be given adequate time. Even under the timetable motion, that time is not adequate.

Mr. Wakeham: My proposal would be that we change the times when the guillotine will fall to make up for the time that has been lost in the first debate. If we start the first debate, we can meet and settle this in a few minutes. That is what I propose we do.

Mr. Heller: rose—

Mr. Harry Barnes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a sensible suggestion.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order in a moment. I am on my feet and the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have just said that what the Leader of the House has said seems a reasonable solution aimed at getting the House out of the difficulty in which it finds itself.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heffer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been trying for long enough. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you have the power to suspend the sitting while the meeting takes place. I suggest that, because you have that power and because we are getting near to five o'clock when the first guillotine will fall and we cannot have a proper discussion, you suspend the House while the discussion takes place and then report back to the House so that we can then proceed.

Mr. Speaker: There is no point in that. As the Leader of the House has already said what he will do about this, the discussions would simply be wasting further time.

Mr. Riddick: rose—

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Dobson.

Mr. Dobson: It appears that the Government Front Bench may be willing to adjust the later business, and obviously we welcome that. However, if the Government were to move a dilatory motion that we adjourn for 10 minutes, which they have the power to do under the guillotine motion, it would be possible to have a seemly and sensible discussion of the Business Committee at which all members of the Business Committee could be present, and it would enable the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) to know that he could have a debate for a reasonable time without being cut off in mid-sentence, and we would know that a Minister would eventually reply to the debate.
The proposition of the Leader of the House is rather ragged and we could end up with a mess at the end of the discussion in the Business Committee. It would be altogether more sensible and seemly if the House were to adjourn for 10 minutes so that agreement could be reached in the Business Committee and the debate conducted in the way in which it should have been conducted all along.

Mr. Riddick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you say whether any of our proceedings this

afternoon are out of order, because it seems to me that everything is in order? The Bill, as amended, is on the Table and the Leader of the House has come up with a sensible and reasonable suggestion. Those who are riot prepared to take it are clearly trying to make mischief.

Mr. Wakeham: If it is correct that I can move a dilatory motion—I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, before I do anything—in my view it probably is the best plan if we adjourn for 10 minutes, see whether we can resolve the matter and then return.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is the wish of hon. Members that the House should suspend informally for 10 minutes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—so be it.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming:—

Mr. Speaker: The Business Committee recommends that the time set out in the Table of Proceedings be advanced by one hour, so that the first guillotine will fall at six o'clock, the second at 7.30 pm, the third at 8.15 pm, and the fourth at 9 pm. Third Reading will be concluded at 10 pm.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That this House doth agree with the Business Committee in the said resolution.

Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not propose postponing debate on the amendment of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), since the purpose of the operation that has been successfully carried out in the last hour is to give his amendment the opportunity that it deserves. However, I place on record that, while we hoped and believed that the Business Committee would provide that which the House wanted and deserved, it has insisted that the debate concludes at 10 o'clock. Therefore, the House has lost one hour of debate because of the Government's intransigence and incompetence. I do not believe that the House would have been incapable of making an adjustment to the Ten o'clock motion, had that been the will of the Leader of the House, and had the House endorsed it. Instead, the debase has been scandalously guillotined, which is another example of the excesses for which the Government are responsible.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that the House should proceed with the debate.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I remind you of my suggestion that if the two Chief Whips got together it would be for the purpose of screwing down Conservative opposition to the Bill. Many right hon. and hon. Members who voted for its Second Reading will wish to express their reservation about the way in which matters have been dealt with throughout the guillotine procedures. We would have had the opportunity to do so on Third Reading, but, as a result of the agreement reached between the two Chief Whips, many right hon. and hon. Members will be prevented from doing so. That is another example of the way in which discussion and dissent is being limited by the guillotine, and of the


actions taken by members of the Government and Opposition Front Benches, getting together to keep the awkward squad out.

Mr. Wakeham: I wish to proceed with debate as much as you do, Mr. Speaker, but I say to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that the Business Committee did not have the power to extend the Third Reading vote beyond 10 o'clock, as that was in the guillotine passed by the House. The Business Committee had power to adjust earlier guillotines to the convenience of the House, and it did so unanimously. However, it did not have the power to do that which the right hon. Gentleman suggested.

New Clause 1

AUTHORISED PUBLICATION

`(1) A person who has been a member of the security and intelligence services may with the consent of the Secretary of State publish information relating to his former work.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not unreasonably withhold his consent under subsection (1) above provided that the publication can take place without causing or being likely to cause jeopardy to national security directly or indirectly or to cause damage to the work of or any part of the security and intelligence services.

(3) Where a person who has been a member of the security and intelligence services believes that the consent of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above has been unreasonably withheld he may seek the advice of the Staff Counsellor to the Security Services.

(4) Where the advice of the Staff Counsellor has been sought under subsection (3) above and where it appears to the Staff Counsellor that by omitting specified information the publication could take place without causing or being likely to cause any of the effects in subsection (2) above he shall advise the Secretary of State of his omissions or alterations which in his opinion would be required for this purpose.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Amery: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 9, in clause 4, page 4, line 45, at end insert
'(4A) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (3) above if:

(a) before the time of the alleged offence the information in question had become widely available to the public, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; and
(b) there was no reasonable likelihood that its further disclosure would endanger the safety of a British citizen, or damage the work of any part of the security or intelligence services or have any of the effects mentioned in subsection (2) above.'.

Mr. Amery: I begin by expressing gratitude to those right hon. and hon. Members who earlier raised points of order and, as a result, ensured a rather larger attendance to hear the points to which I wish to draw attention.
The new clause concerns authorisation for publication of memoirs, articles, or whatever, by former or existing members of the security services or those privy to that information, and the basis on which it should be authorised. I do not suppose that there are 50 or 60 people today in a queue to publish their memoirs, but right hon. and hon. Members may agree that the House would not be discussing reforming the Official Secrets Act 1911 had it not been for the case of "Spycatcher" and Mr. Peter

Wright. The need for reform has been discussed for years, but that case was the fuse that led to the present explosion and debate.
Before "Spycatcher" and Peter Wright, there was a well understood convention by which members of the secret services who wished to write about their experiences submitted their text to the authorities, who discussed the text with the author and proposed amendments or deletion of names where that was thought necessary in the national interest. That procedure was well understood, and I know dozens of people who followed it with little difficulty. The authorities made objections only on reasonable grounds, and deletions followed in almost every case. If someone had not been prepared to make the requested changes, he or she would have been liable for prosecution under the Official Secrets Act 1911.
When the cases of Mr. Peter Wright and Anthony Cavendish arose, a new principle of lifelong confidentiality was advanced, and instead of discussion of the text, the authors were simply told by the authorities "We cannot talk about it because of your obligation to observe lifelong confidentiality". My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is the only person who can confirm the claim made by Mr. Wright's lawyers that a text of "Spycatcher" was submitted, but I know from Mr. Cavendish and his publishers that they submitted a text. In both cases, the reply was given, "Sorry. We cannot discuss the matter because of the principle of your obligation to lifelong confidentiality".
On Second Reading, I advanced as mildly as I could the argument for returning to the older and good-natured convention that previously prevailed. To my surprise—because in my 40 years in the House such a thing had never happened to me—a Minister agreed to a proposal that was put to him by a right hon. or hon. Member. My hon. Friend gave me the assurances I sought in great detail. I shall quote only one passage. In the presence of all of us my hon. Friend said:
So the sole criterion for authorising publication is whether publication of a particular piece of information will jeopardise national security directly or indirectly. It is a judgment about considerations which are relevant today, not about past history or former embarrassments.
If a point of difficulty were to be identified it might still be possible through discussion to agree with the author a change in the text to overcome the problem.
A little later my hon. Friend said:
If the problem is larger than just a few minor textual changes or if agreement cannot be reached, sometimes authorisation will not be given. My right hon. Friend"—
that was me—
will understand that authorisation cannot be given on every occasion but I can assure him that this decision would never be taken by one person alone, but by senior members."— [Official Report, 21 December 1988; Vol. 144, c. 538.]
5 pm
I had occasion to write to my right hon. Friend about other points that I had raised in the debate and to which my right hon. Friend, naturally, had not had time to reply. When my right hon. Friend replied he said:
I must emphasise that authorisation to members or former members in respect of disclosures of information about their work will be rare and given only in exceptional circumstances.
As I told my right hon. Friend, I do not see how we can reconcile the statements made by my hon. Friend in the


House and by my right hon. Friend in his letter to me. The second statement was just in a letter to me; the House had not been told.
However, my right hon. Friend has said that a correction was made earlier in Committee. So I searched, with the help of some of my hon. Friends, through Hansard. It is true that in the dinner hour on 25 January, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, rather surprisingly:
I have little to add to what I said on Second Reading. It will not come as any surprise to those concerned to know that authorisation to members and former members to disclose information about their work will be rare and given only in exceptional circumstances."—[Official Report, 25 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 1104.]
Clearly, what happened was that, in the cold light of day, my right hon. Friend and hon. Friend, having studied the assurances which they had given me, and which were so satisfactory that I almost ran into the Division Lobby to support the Government, saw that their assurances were not compatible with the principle of lifelong confidentiality, on which they had wasted a great deal of public money in the Wright case and rather less in the Cavendish case, and which was fundamental to the Bill. So they have been trying to get out of what they said.
What is to be done? We cannot square the assurances given by my hon. Friend with the statements in Committee and later by my right hon. Friend in his letter to me. The statements cannot be reconciled. What are we to do? this poses a difficult House of Commons problem. We have assurances. They are enshrined in the tablets of the Official Report. If they wish to go back on them, the Government will have to explain why, and they will have to allow right hon. and hon. Members to discuss the matter. They have to explain whether they have changed their mind. I hope that on reflection my right hon. Friend will say that he still stands by the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. If he wishes to modify them, he should say so.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the new clause. In the clause we are trying to write into the Bill, in view of the uncertainty, the assurances that were given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. We have tried to put in textually the assurances that he gave. I do not think that we have departed from them in any respect. The new clause could be amended, of course.
I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that from the beginning I have been basically on the Government's side. I do not want to see Privy Councillors or a Select Committee determining the conduct of the secret services. Members of the secret services must be under the control of the Executive. Every study that I have made of the American and Canadian systems convinces me that that is right. I point out to my right hon. Friend that the shadow Home Secretary has endorsed the new clause, as has the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who had more direct, if less lengthy, experience of the secret services than I have had, when he was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
I urge my right hon. Friend either to accept the new clause as it stands or to seek to amend it, through a manuscript amendment or in the other place, but not to repudiate totally the assurances given by my hon. Friend. I urge him not to go back to the old position which was wrecked in Australia and has been made a laughing stock

elsewhere. If he likes, he can produce a modified version of the assurances given by my hon. Friend which might be acceptable to some of us.
The point is of importance to the secret services themselves. They have a problem of morale because they work in the dark. No one can tell whether a member of the secret services is succeeding or failing in life. He cannot talk about his work when he goes home at night. Members of the secret services need encouragement. The best encouragement that can be given to them is for them to be able to read from time to time information about what has been done in the past by successful members of the secret services. I have no objection to the information being censored by the authorities concerned who may be more liberal than those who pursued Compton Mackenzie many years ago. He wrote a book, "Water on the Brain", which I commend to all hon. Members. It was a skit on the secret services. I would not want my right hon. Friend and hon. Friend to be the victim of anything like that, although I might attempt to write it if they are not careful.

Dr. Owen: I support the new clause. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) rightly concentrated on people who have been in the employment at one stage in their career of the security or intelligence services. It is also necessary to consider another category of people in which, I suppose, we all have a vested interest. After all, in clause 1 the person to whom the complete ban applies is not just a member of the security or intelligence services but also, in subsection (l)(b):
a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection".
That would cover all Prime Ministers, all Foreign Secretaries, and all Home Secretaries, to name but a few, who have written memoirs. It would probably involve a number of other Ministers at various times.
The formulation given to the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading—that authorisation would not be unreasonably withheld and that there would have to be proof that the information would jeopardise national security—was a considerable reassurance to many people. Effectively, it meant that there would have to be some mechanism whereby memoirs could be written about past events.
I was not privy to the letter that passed between the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman, but I should be appalled if the authorisation were given only in rare or exceptional circumstances. I could understand that phraseology if it applied to only the initial period. We can all argue about when would be an apt time to allow someone to write his memoirs. After all, we are not the only country in the world with security and intelligence services. Other countries have mechanisms whereby people who have written their memoirs can have them checked and processed.
The new clause sensibly addresses itself to creating a recognised and acceptable method whereby memoirs can be vetted and authorisation is not unreasonably withheld, particularly after the passage of time. Clearly a professional judgment should; be made by—to use the Home Secretary's jargon—somebody "inside the circle", and it is accepted that the staff counsellor is "inside". We are asking not for anyone to come in from outside, but for someone who is privy to all the matters concerned to make a reasonable judgment.
An absolute ban—without any qualification—is unacceptable. The Home Secretary may want to accept modifications to the new clause, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Pavilion would accept any minor modifications that were needed. However, in principle, there should be some mechanism to assure the authorisation. Without it, the legislation would make us a laughing stock. Are hon. Members really willing to accept that they could be told that they could not reveal any aspect of their work?
The former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan did not feel able to give all the information when he wrote his memoirs—although, like most Prime Ministers, he leaked pretty satisfactorily. Clearly when he talked to his biographer he gave far more information. His most recent biography—particularly its account of events in north Africa—has been given more authenticity, and an area of information has been revealed beyond what is in the official records. Should that avenue of information and knowledge be completely stopped without any say-so?
It may be that writers are no longer Members of the House when their books are issued, and are therefore covered by privilege. Will such writers be abstractly told that their works cannot be published? Will the Home Secretary deal with that category of writer when he replies?
It would be absurd for a Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary—or other hon. Members—to be affected by the legislation. They should not be made a special case or treated differently from people in the security and intelligence services. I am not asking that politicians should be allowed to make money out of their memoirs while members of the security and intelligence services cannot: the same rule should apply to both. However, it strikes closer to home when hon. Members themselves are affected.
The severity, arbitrariness and authoritarian nature of the provision becomes more clear cut when we realise that hardly a word of Sir Winston Churchill's wartime memoirs could have been given authorisation under the Bill. It has been acknowledged that he went well beyond the bounds of reason and probably revealed far too much in his memoirs. He certainly did not have them checked. That precedent was followed by many people. I plead guilty to making a number of arbitrary judgments about what it was reasonable to disclose, and I think that it is healthy that we are not bound by provisions. However, I would live with a general mechanism such as that proposed in the new clause.
I am not asking to be treated differently from anyone else, but the absence of the necessary mechanism in the Bill places intolerable restrictions not only on future hon. Members but on people who work in the security and intelligence services.

Mr. Aitken: As the debate has rolled forward I have wondered increasingly, listening to the Government's arguments, whether to cry or to laugh. On the whole, I have decided to do the latter. The burlesque nature of the episode was highlighted by the farce that we witnessed this afternoon over points of order.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Hear, hear.

Mr. Aitken: I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary loudly saying, "Hear, hear". I am about to take him on the third act of the comic opera that he has staged for us—the way in which he and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have conducted this part of the argument. They remind me of the famous character of Uncle Podger in Jerome K. Jerome's "Three Men in a Boat." Uncle Podger was a somewhat hamfisted individual who, when asked to perform the simplest task such as hanging a picture or knocking in a nail, produced disastrous results. He smashed the window, cracked the sculpture and created mayhem and chaos as the hammer broke and flew off in the wrong direction.
Uncle Podger has been at work on this part of the Bill. We need do no more than study exactly what was said about the perfectly sensible argument deployed by my right hon Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). As he reminded us, he first deployed it on Second Reading. Clearly the doctrine of lifelong, eternal, absolute confidentiality, in all circumstances and at all times, cannot stand up to serious examination without sooner or later, as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, making those who administer the law a laughing stock. There are hundreds of good reasons for saying that such a doctrine cannot be sustained, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion illustrated on Second Reading. When he tried to discover whether there was any flexibility in the Trappist vows that we were being asked to write into law he received an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister of State whose words bear repeating once more, that
the sole criterion for authorising publication is whether publication of a particular piece of information will jeopardise national security directly or indirectly. It is a judgment about considerations which are relevant today, not about past history or former embarrassments.
My hon. Friend the Minister went on to make it absolutely clear that the matter would be handled in a reasonable manner and that authorisation would sometimes be given. He ended with the words—in view of the fact that his right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion was threatening rebellion, the wise words—
Following those reassurances, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion will be persuaded to join us in the Division Lobby tonight."—[Official Report, 21 December 1988; Vol. 144, c. 538.]
Didn't the Minister of State do well? Yet less than a month later those assurances were completely repudiated—not just by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in what I am sure he thought was a top-secret letter exchanged between him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion, but up popped the Minister of State, with an apparently straight face[Hon. Members: "In the dinner hour".] Yes, it was the dinner hour. He opened with the words:
I have little to add to what I said on Second Reading."—
hardly the usual phrase with which to announce a 180 degree U-turn. He continued:
It will not come as any surprise"—
but, my goodness, there were enormous surprises to come
to those concerned to know that authorisation to members and former members to disclose information about their work will be rare and given only in exceptional circumstances."—[Official Report. 25 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 1104.]
That was a tremendous surprise. Not since Archbishop Cranmer thrust his hands into the flames has there been a more spectacular example of public recantation. I thought


that we might get an apology or explanation for such a major volte face, but apart from the poor old Minister of State appearing in the role of Uncle Podger, embarrassed and being made to eat humble pie, we have not.
This is a serious matter. Humble pie is clearly not a diet to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State is accustomed. He wears his embarrassment lightly, but I hope that I can shame him into seeing the necessity to honour his original words, which were infinitely sensible compared with the later correction.
It is not right that ministerial memoirs should be blocked for all time. I am looking forward to the second volume of the memoirs of my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion. My right hon. Friend's memoirs were memorably reviewed by a colleague with the opening line:
Julian Amery was born with a hand-grenade in his mouth.
In his old age he seems to have lobbed it in the direction of the Treasury Bench instead of at the Albanians or whoever it would have been in the old days.
In all seriousness—

Mr. Gorst: Before my hon. Friend moves on in all seriousness, will he remind me exactly what happened to the boat in "Three Men in a Boat"? I cannot quite recall.

Mr. Aitken: I think that we have two men in a sinking ship this afternoon. They are really in trouble with this new clause.
Perhaps hon. Members remember the brouhaha over "My Country, Right or Wrong". That was a BBC radio programme, of ultimately stunning tedium, in which several members of the Security Service such as Lord Dacre, Lord Annan, Mr. John Day, with the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—who would be a proscribed person under the Bill—contributed a few thoughts as to how the security services might be better run and whether there should be oversight or better management. That is publication and it is covered by the all-singing, all-dancing eternal doctrine of absolute confidentiality.
I have a more private and perhaps more illuminating example. Some months ago certain Conservative Back Benchers met at a suitably clandestine rendezvous, the Flyfishers club in London, with certain former senior members of the Security Service. We did not say anything improper, outrageous or anything which affected national security. We had discussions about how the security services might conceivably be a little better run and improved in future. Memoranda of some interest were exchanged. Would those publications mean that we shall all be in the dock? Would we all be in trouble under the terms of the Bill? We would be unless a sensible amendment along the lines suggested by the Minister of State is introduced.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Did Chapman Pincher give permission for the meeting to take place?

Mr. Aitken: I do not think that Chapman Pincher had heard of it, I am happy to say.
Unless the new clause is accepted, we shall be encapsulating a doctrine which is insulting to good Crown servants. It is quite wrong that disclosures cannot be made in any circumstances. The new clause provides that authority should be given on reasonable grounds which have nothing to do with national security and if it cannot

damage the Security Service. The wording of the new clause almost exactly follows the words used by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The new clause is sensible and wise and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Hattersley: I want principally to speak in support of amendment No. 9, which has been grouped with this new clause. Before I do that, I support the new clause moved by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). I hope that he will not find it offensive, indeed he will probably find it positively helpful, when I say that the new clause is; a comparatively modest improvement on the Government's proposal because, if it is passed, the Government will in the end remain the arbiter of what is published. I hope that some Conservative Members as well as some of my colleagues will believe that the very modesty of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal should commend it to the House in the Division this evening.
In common with the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), I regard myself as too old to cry and I have decided to laugh about the Bill. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that, in admitting that, we both confess a taste for black humour. To paraphrase another cliché, some people will laugh all the way to prison as result of the proposals in the Bill.
That may occur when people believe that they have a right or duty to reveal what happened during their distinguished careers in the secret services and then find that the present ban is so absolute and total that they are required to write nothing, or write things which, while legitimate when applied to any normal person making an objective judgment, become a criminal offence under this Bill.
I hope that the Government will be able to accept the new clause. Not to do so offers a ban which is so total, absolute and unqualified that it renders the Government oppressive and absurd at the same time. The Government gain no advantage, even from their own point of view, in putting themselves or any of their successors in that preposterous position.
The new clause changes the emphasis. It accepts that there are occasions when publication is right, proper and acceptable. However, it then goes on—and I understand the principles on which the right hon. Gentleman proceeds—to claim that publication must be organised in such a way that the interests of the nation are not jeopardised. For all its modesty, the new clause contains the essential element which has been lacking from so much of the Bill—the ability to distinguish between publishing information which is harmful and information which is harmless. Harm is defined, as the right hon. Member for Pavilion has rightly said, ultimately by the Home Secretary. When the appeals and complaints of the various subsections are exhausted, the Home Secretary will decide. If the Home Secretary is not prepared to accept this modification, that shows that not only does he wish to prevent publication of that which may harm, but in relation to the Bill he insists on the right to prevent publication of harmless material.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this goes even further? Under the list of notified persons, the Prime Minister of the day is entitled to silence former colleagues or former officials of


another party. It brings in a form of dictatorship and censorship over what people can know. Is that not very dangerous?

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend must not tempt me into exploring all the dangers inherent in all the provisions. I agree with him and will go further. One of our objections to the rules as they now stand is that not only do they allow the Government to suppress things which should have been made public, but, as the Government can allow publication according to their judgments and criteria, they can positively encourage the publication of authorised memoirs, material which serves the Government's purpose, as distinct from fulfilling the proper purposes described by the right hon. Member for Pavilion.
Amendment No. 9 is intended to extend the harm test about which the Home Secretary has spoken so often and which he has told us in a sense is an alternative to the public interest defence. In the debates on prior publication, the Home Secretary told us that the harm test is relevant to a defence, but should not, and cannot, be used as conclusive proof of evidence. Amendment No. 9 seeks to extend the Home Secretary's principle into two areas where, at the moment, the fact of publication is an offence, irrespective of whether the publication causes harm or can be demonstrated to cause harm.
I know that the Home Secretary has constant semantic difficulties over this issue. I warn him that I am not asking for "serious harm" which is a concept to which he is wedded outside this place, but which he opposed in Committee. I refer simply to "harm test" as he defines it. Under amendment No. 9, the harm test should be extended to two areas to which it does not apply at present.
As the Bill stands, any information related to a warrant under the Interception of Communications Act 1985—to put it colloquially, that is telephone tapping—or any information concerned with or related to a warrant under the Security Service Bill is automatically prohibited from publication. We did not have the opportunity to debate why that should be so and the guillotine made it impossible for us to argue, as we would have argued, that the absolute rule—nothing can be published ever—should not have applied to those two categories of information.
We want to extend the harm test to, as an obvious example, a telephone tap. I want to refer to an example which has been referred to many times in Committee. A man may discover from a member of the security services that his telephone is being tapped illegally without the permission of the Home Secretary or that it is being tapped under warrant with the Secretary of State's permission. It seems wholly unreasonable that he should be prevented from discussing that if the discussion does not harm the national interest. We simply ask that the harm test be extended in those two particulars.
Since time is short, the Home Secretary may not want to intervene now, but he owes it to the House to give a considered explanation when he makes his speech.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I should like very briefly to support the new clause and the amendment, which are, of course, joined by a common feature—the Government's obsession not to admit error over the Wright case. That follows in

both cases. I think we all know that Peter Wright did submit his memoirs to the Government and that a great deal of trouble would have been saved—

Mr. Budgen: Is not the tragedy and the irony of these proceedings that they arise principally because section 2 of the 1911 Act lacked authority and could not be used by the Government? By bashing this measure through in such an authoritarian way the Government incur the serious risk that juries may not accord it the authority that it ought to have. Will they not have spent far more time and money than they would have done if they had treated the House with rather more respect?

Sir Ian Gilmour: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, in our earlier truncated discussions I tried to make something of the same point—that this Bill will soon have very little more legitimacy than the much-derided section 2 of the Act of 1911. The Government have an obsession not to be proved wrong. As I have said, Peter Wright did submit his memoirs.
What my right hon. Friend is suggesting, and what my hon. Friend originally agreed to, is eminently sensible. Quite apart from the very good point made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), if the new clause is not accepted the Government will be creating a complete barrier: ex-Ministers will be allowed to publish what they want, and members of the security services will not be allowed to publish anything at all. That is really quite unconscionable, and something that a free society cannot possibly tolerate.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not think my right hon. Friend is right. Surely what the right hon. Gentleman said was that ex-Ministers would not be able to publish their memoirs either.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Either way, I think it would be wrong. What will happen, I think, is that ex-Ministers will publish their memoirs and that no action will be taken. That distinction, as I have said, is one that I do not think is tolerable.
It seems to me that what the new clause provides for is eminently sensible and that the only reason the Government can possibly have for not accepting it is that, by doing so, they would be implicitly admitting error over the case of Peter Wright. The same thing applies, of course, to the amendment. It, too, brings in the question of prior publication, which again was one of the features of the Peter Wright case—in fact, eventually the crucial point, I think. The judges, quite rightly, decided that it would be entirely wrong to keep from the British people what was being published everywhere else.
This amendment seems to me to be eminently sensible. It is quite inconceivable that a case such as that mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) should be kept quiet. If I were involved in such a case I would certainly publicise it, as, I think, would most other people. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will accept both the new clause and the amendment.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I support the principle of the new clause and of the amendment. The wording of both may need further attention and adjustment; nevertheless, I hope that the Government will consider them sympathetically and, if need be, come back to the question in another place. None of my hon. and


right hon. Friends can argue that the wording is necessarily exactly right, but the major point in both the new clause and the amendment is made in subsection (2) of the new clause, which says quite clearly:
The Secretary of State shall not unreasonably withhold his consent … provided that the publication can take place without causing or being likely to cause jeopardy to national security directly or indirectly or to cause damage to the work of or any part of the security and intelligence services.
That is a major aspect of both which leads me to believe that, in looking for more flexibility, I can support the principle in both. I hope that the Home Secretary will look at those two points.
I referred a moment ago to the actual wording. I must say that I am sceptical about the use of the words "Secretary of State". I do not want to develop the point, but I have to say that a Secretary of State is a bird of passage. As Home Secretary, I was informed that I could not see security information which arose under the previous Administration. There may be former security service officers or politicians who wish to publish a book years later. In these circumstances a new Secretary of State may not be able to make a judgment except on the advice of people talking second-hand or of people who were involved in the activities years previously. Of course, those people will tend to have closed minds. The words "Secretary of State" mean more than an individual occupying that position, so they ought to be reconsidered.
I should like briefly to consider also the word "consent". Both the amendment and the new clause keep referring constantly, and properly, to consent under subsection (1) and consent of the Secretary of State. I wish to refer to one aspect of the Franks report which I do not believe has had sufficient airing. I should like to know whether the advice that we were given by the Home Office in 1972 still applies. I agree that that was given under the catch-all section 2, but in case the Home Secretary relents and the idea comes up in another place I draw attention to page 14 of the Franks report.
We had come across something that we did not understand, in that many officials, and certainly politicians, regarded themselves as being self-authorisers—that, whatever the legislation said, they could authorise the giving of information. That part of the Franks report—I shall not read it out at this time—arose as a result. Senior civil servants and senior officials of the security services, not to mention Ministers, could authorise themselves in the public interest to reveal information. That authorisation was not given to people lower down and it was not crystal clear where the line lay. Nevertheless, as a result of the information that we were given, we wrote—it was not a recommendation—that Ministers were, in fact, self-authorising, that they decided for themselves what to reveal. That is the existing situation. Is that self-authorisation implicit in the new legislation, whether amended or not?
In this regard I will tell the House what happened to me. I wrote a book about Northern Ireland. I looked at the Cabinet papers—there were not very many which referred to Northern Ireland, though there were acres from Cabinet sub-Committees. I read through them all and through security reports, and wrote what I had to write. I submitted my book to the Cabinet Office, chapter by chapter, and officials there looked at it. I had no complaints at all about what happened. The Cabinet Office suggested that certain things should not be revealed. When

I pointed out that I had given the information to the House of Commons 10 years previously, and that it had been published in Hansard, it became clear that I could publish it. That was simple.
Previously I had taken out people's names, and certainly I gave the name of nobody in the security services, but it was suggested that all names should be removed—even the names of persons whom I was praising for the excellent job that they had done, because, in the context of Northern Ireland, revealing a name in any way would be dangerous to the person concerned. I accepted most of the changes that were suggested to me, but nobody authorised me to publish—I made my own judgment after people had given me their views on certain aspects of the book.
As the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and others have said, we shall be running into serious trouble with this tighter Bill if politicians and others wish to write memoirs—unless, of course, there is a time aspect, a sort of innate 20-year rule, or something. I want to be absolutely sure what view the Government take of their own Bill in respect of authorisation and the role of politicians. What the Home Secretary says about that will influence me greatly.
Both the new clause and the amendment have provisions to protect the security of the state, but they allow greater flexibility than the Bill as it stands. I have no great cases for my memoirs, but I know people who have. One day there will be a great argument about the security services, and in the public interest that argument should not be conducted under the legislation that will result from the Bill as it stands, which will not allow information to be published in the public interest. I hope that the Secretary of State will look closely at the amendment.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I support the new clause and amendment No. 9. In earlier debates on clause 4, and in more general debates on the absolute offences under the Bill, the Home Secretary has failed to draw attention to the fact that the defence of prior publication, which he has said is a relevant defence to be considered by a jury, is not available to someone who is accused. The provisions of amendment No. 9 are designed to ensure that the defence of prior publication may be deployed in certain, very narrow, circumstances. Under the amendment, it is not treated as an absolute defence; it is a factor which may be taken into consideration. I cannot see how, in line with the Home Secretary's earlier argument, he can fail to accept the amendment.
If we were debating clause 4 as a whole, we might wish to raise what we did not have time to raise in the guillotined debate, which is why it is necessary to create an absolute offence about telephone tapping when disclosures about other forms of surveillance are not absolute offences. Some such disclosures will not cause harm. It would not be harmful, for example, to reveal that five years ago the phone of a possible suspect had been tapped, but the surveillance had been ended when it was realised that he was not in any way implicated in any wrongdoing. I cannot do more than draw the attention of the other place to the enormities of clause 4 and hope that it will take that to heart.
The amendment would allow the Home Secretary to recognise the force of the arguments deployed in the "Spycatcher" case by at least two of the Lords who considered the matter—Lord Brightman and Lord


Griffiths. The Home Secretary will remember that Lord Griffiths spoke of how the Attorney-General had admitted that, despite the fact that "Spycatcher" had received worldwide publication and was available in this country to anyone who wished to read it, the law forbade the press, the media or anyone else to comment on any part of it, saving only that which had already been referred to in the judgment of the courts. He said that if such was the law, the law would be an ass. If we do not accept amendment No. 9 tabled by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, the law will, indeed, be an ass. I seek the Home Secretary's assurance that if we have not got it quite right, he will take the point on board and table his own version in the other place.
It is in respect of clause 4 and the ban on repeating information that has already been disclosed so that no conceivable harm can be caused that the Bill is most likely to fall foul of article 10 of the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary has not given adequate justification for the blanket ban. Therefore, we look to him to accept amendment No. 9, if not in the letter, at least in the spirit.

Mr. Winnick: Despite what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, I would imagine that even this Government would draw the line at trying to ban the memoirs of former Ministers, so we are dealing basically, despite what the Bill says, with those who serve in the security and intelligence services. Much has been made of the Wright case. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said that the Wright case was probably one of the reasons for the introduction of the Bill. That was a long-running saga, and if Ministers had been involved in secret collusion with Wright, they could not have done more to make him a millionaire. Without that publicity, the book would probably have sold only a modest number of copies, instead of becoming a bestseller. The Government did Mr. Wright a great favour, at the expense of the taxpayer.
I have not read much of Wright's book because I find it too boring. However, I have read another book by a former member of the security and intelligence services, a book that the Government tried to ban. It is called "One Girl's War" and is written by Joan Miller. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has read it, because he quoted from it, and a number of other people have read it. I made sure that it was in the Library. I did not buy my own copy. I cannot for the life of me see any reason why the Government should try to ban it.
5.45 pm
Under the Bill, because Joan Miller had been involved in the security services, the book would be banned. However, she was involved in the security services during the war years, hence the title. What possible harm did the publication of that book do to the security and safety of the nation? The Government tried to stop it being published here but did not succeed, any more than they did with Wright's book, although Joan Miller's book came out first. Secondly, under the provisions of the Bill, the Government would have the powers to stop any such publication.
Lifelong confidentiality is nonsense. It has not worked in any other western democracy—certainly not in the United States. If the Government insist on the Bill going through as it is, as they obviously will, because I have no doubt that the amendment and new clause will be rejected at 6 o'clock, sooner or later there will be another Wright case. There will be another saga and a lot of money will be spent for no purpose. Despite the passage of the Bill, if such a book is published abroad with the resulting commotion, it will end up, like Wright's book, in the United Kingdom. The Government of the day will be the victim of a great deal of laughter, as this Government were over the Wright case.
I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect on the matter. He has not thought carefully about any previous amendment. He has been quite obstinate. No matter how moderate either the amendment or the speeches in favour of it, he has said no. I do not have much hope that he will change his view at this stage, but he should at least think about it.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) was generous in his comments on our earlier proceedings. I regret that time that could have been spent debating the issues arising out of the amendments was spent on an empty and deeply unprofitable point of procedure.
The starting point from which to consider new clause 1 is the need to ensure that the security and intelligence services work effectively, and out of that need has come what is described as the doctrine of lifelong confidentiality. It is set out in clause 1 and was discussed without restriction of time on the first day of the Committee. It was strongly contested, as it continues to be contested, by critics of the Bill but it was approved. It is no good the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) reopening the debate. The decision is clear.
New clause 1 creates a right—I agree that it is hedged about with conditions—that, under certain conditions, cannot be unreasonably withheld. Therefore, new clause 1 sits oddly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion agreed, with the lifelong duty of confidentiality. I doubt whether my right hon. Friend would have thought to put this into statute if he were satisfied with the policy, because he is not normally one for putting things in statute if he is satisfied with the policy. He explained to the House why he was dissatisfied.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave an account of the procedure which governs the position when a member or former member is considering writing a book. That account was an accurate description of the steps which a member or former member needs to go through before there can be any question of publication. When a former member proceeds to publication without seeking authorisation, or continues even when permission has been refused, the Government must take action to enforce the duty of confidentiality. As he said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion wrote to me after the Second Reading debate. On reading his letter, it was clear that it was necessary to say more, not about the procedure but about the policy within which the procedure would take place. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State took advantage of the relevant debate on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member


for Torbay (Mr. Allason). He used the words which have already been quoted and which I quoted when the matter was raised a week or so ago. He said:
authorisation to members and former members to disclose information about their work will be rare and given only in exceptional circumstances."—[Official Report, 25 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 1104.]
On 31 January, I wrote in exactly the same terms to my right hon. Friend, whom hon. Members knew could not be present at the debate, on the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. There is no question of repudiating correspondence. What is in Hansard of 25 January is on all fours with what I wrote to my right hon. Friend six days later.
I do not object to the agreeable, able teasing from my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). The last time he spoke on this matter, not having verified all his sources, he was wrong to say that there had been or might have been an attempt to mislead the House, and to say different things in correspondence with my right hon. Friend than was said in Committee. 1 hope that I have established that that is not so.

Mr. Budgen: Is it not unsatisfactory to announce that some people will be allowed to break the law as a result of some policy that gives protection to a certain class? Is it not better to try to build that exception into the law, rather than leave it to the arbitrary discretion of the Executive?

Mr. Hurd: That is disclosure without authority. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has been paying the same close attention to the Bill that he paid during earlier stages of the Committee's proceedings. If he looks at clause 1, he will find that that is so.

Mr. Amery: I am a little lost in the argument that my right hon. Friend has been developing. Does he say that what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in Committee, using the same words as he used to me in his letter, is in effect a repudiation of what he said on Second Reading?

Mr. Hurd: In reply to the Second Reading debate, my hon. Friend was dealing with the procedure that would be followed. That is a statement of the procedure, and I will turn to one or two points connected with it in a moment.
Having received my right hon. Friend's letter, it was clear that something more needed to be said, not about the procedure but about policy, and that was said first by my hon. Friend in Committee and then by me in writing to, and discussing the matter with, my right hon. Friend.
It would not be fair to dwell on specific points in my right hon. Friend's new clause, because he was open-minded about it. He puts the Secretary of State into too prominent a position in deciding these matters. The security and intelligence service concerned would have a central role in considering whether the information could be disclosed. He also got the role of the staff counsellor slightly wrong. I refer him to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said on Second Reading. The staff counsellor is to provide members and former members of the services with someone who is not a member of the services with whom he or she can discuss concerns and anxieties about their work which it has not been possible to allay through normal staff management channels. That refers to authorisation, as it does to any other matters.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) continues to press his point about article 10 of

the European convention. I continue to say that it is entirely compatible with our obligations. Articles 10.1 and 10.2 provide explicitly that the exercise of the right
to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority … carries with it duties and responsibilities",
and accordingly
may be subject to such formalities … as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime … preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence".
As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is case law, including the Handyside and The Sunday Times cases. I am satisfied that the provisions in the Bill are compatible with that article and with the convention as a whole.
The right hon. Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) talked as though we were bringing in some new restriction. I want to be entirely accurate. There is one limited respect, and that is the use of the word "purport". There was discussion in Committee about that. There is an extension of the existing restriction, but that is a relatively minor point. In all other respects, the obligation under the Bill is the same as that under the present law. This happens so often in our debates. We are removing so much from the scope of the criminal law and modifying in the direction of openness what remains so extensively with the harm test that when something remains more or less unchanged, according to some hon. Members, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Mr. Foot: How does this cover ministerial memoirs and reports? Are they covered by the phrase "only in rare and exceptional cases", or is the present situation to continue? The right hon. Gentleman has not made it clear.

Mr. Hurd: It is to continue under the law. We are talking about people who entered work which they knew was secret, and that fact was made totally plain when they entered the work. People who are notified will be in the same position. It cannot be retrospective. There is no expectation of a right of publication, even hedged about with conditions. Of course there are different types of book. We can imagine somebody writing a book about East-West relations, or a politician writing his memoirs and dealing incidentally with work that might fall under this category. I disagree that full-blown memoirs would be a good thing. The policy and principle in clause 1 are accurate and right.
I agree with the importance of amendment No. 9. The situation in respect of warrants has completely changed, compared with the mid-1970s, when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and other signatories to the amendment were in positions close to these matters. There was then no statutory procedure and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, no reason in law why the Secretary of State should be involved in organising individual interceptions. There was no commissioner with statutory powers to invigilate the application of that duty by the Secretary of State, no tribunal to whom the aggrieved citizen could turn, and no staff counsellor to whom anxious members of the Security Service could turn. They are substantial changes over the past five years and they completely alter the background of the amendment. With the Security Service Bill, we propose to extend that principle further. That entirely alters the background to the amendment.
Clause 4(3) is consistent with what we have done, and the amendment would not be. It would allow free circulation of information about matters such as operational techniques, as long as they had been published previously and as long as their disclosure could be held to meet a form of damage test. It would be signalling that, in certain circumstances, these matters could become general and accepted currency.
The new clause has not taken on board the difficulty in bringing any such matters to court. How could the prosecution introduce evidence without revealing or confirming in some detail information about the use of those provisions which are essential if we are adequately to protect the citizen? [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook knows that the procedures for trial in camera are inadequate to meet that point. We are on the same point that we have had to make before. The Opposition are proposing that irreparable damage could be done and that thereafter the lawyers could argue about justification. The question before the House is whether that is too risky a procedure in this limited area. I have not time to expound yet again to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook the position of the gentleman who believes that his telephone is being tapped. I shall do so in time for the right hon. Gentleman to comment. I believe that in this narrow and limited area this absolute provision—which I accept—is the correct one.
It being Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the Resolutions this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided Ayes 197, Noes 309.

Division No. 110]
[6 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbyn, Jeremy


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cryer, Bob


Aitken, Jonathan
Cummings, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Donald
Cunningham, Dr John


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Dobson, Frank


Beckett, Margaret
Doran, Frank


Beith, A. J.
Douglas, Dick


Bell, Stuart
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dykes, Hugh


Bermingham, Gerald
Eadie, Alexander


Bidwell, Sydney
Eastham, Ken


Blair, Tony
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bradley, Keith
Fatchett, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fearn, Ronald


Buchan, Norman
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Buckley, George J.
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Flannery, Martin


Cartwright, John
Flynn, Paul


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Clay, Bob
Foster, Derek


Clelland, David
Foulkes, George


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Fraser, John


Cohen, Harry
Fyfe, Maria


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Galbraith, Sam


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Corbett, Robin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian





Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morgan, Rhodri


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morley, Elliott


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Gorst, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gould, Bryan
Mullin, Chris


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, William


Hardy, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Haynes, Frank
Parry, Robert


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Patchett, Terry


Heffer, Eric S.
Pendry, Tom


Henderson, Doug
Pike, Peter L.


Hinchliffe, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Prescott, John


Home Robertson, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Hood, Jimmy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Radice, Giles


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Randall, Stuart


Howells, Geraint
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rooker, Jeff


Illsley, Eric
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ingram, Adam
Ruddock, Joan


Johnston, Sir Russell
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Charles
Sheerman, Barry


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lambie, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leighton, Ron
Short, Clare


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livsey, Richard
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


McAllion, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


McAvoy, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


McCartney, Ian
Stott, Roger


Macdonald, Calum A.
Strang, Gavin


McFall, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McKelvey, William
Turner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Vaz, Keith


Maclennan, Robert
Wall, Pat


McNamara, Kevin
Wallace, James


McTaggart, Bob
Walley, Joan


McWilliam, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Madden, Max
Wareing, Robert N.


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Marek, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Winnick, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Martlew, Eric
Worthington, Tony


Maxton, John
Wray, Jimmy


Meacher, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Meale, Alan



Michael, Alun
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp;; Bute)
Mr. Nigel Griffiths and


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Moonie, Dr Lewis





NOES


Adley, Robert
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Amess, David
Beggs, Roy


Amos, Alan
Bellingham, Henry


Arbuthnot, James
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Benyon, W.


Ashby, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baldry, Tony
Body, Sir Richard






Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hannam, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bowis, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Harris, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Haselhurst, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Hawkins, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Hayes, Jerry


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayward, Robert


Browne, John (Winchester)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Heddle, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Burns, Simon
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burt, Alistair
Hill, James


Butcher, John
Hind, Kenneth


Butler, Chris
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butterfill, John
Holt, Richard


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Howard, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cash, William
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chope, Christopher
Hunter, Andrew


Churchill, Mr
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Irving, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jack, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kilfedder, James


Day, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Durant, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Eggar, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Knox, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evennett, David
Lang, Ian


Fallon, Michael
Latham, Michael


Favell, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lee, John (Pendle)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Franks, Cecil
McCrindle, Robert


Freeman, Roger
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maclean, David


Gill, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Goodlad, Alastair
Madel, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malins, Humfrey


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gow, Ian
Maples, John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)





Mates, Michael
Sims, Roger


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mellor, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Miller, Sir Hal
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mills, Iain
Speller, Tony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mitchell, Sir David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moate, Roger
Squire, Robin


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stokes, Sir John


Mudd, David
Sumberg, David


Needham, Richard
Summerson, Hugo


Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Norris, Steve
Thorne, Neil


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Patnick, Irvine
Trippier, David


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Trotter, Neville


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pawsey, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Viggers, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Portillo, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Powell, William (Corby)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Price, Sir David
Walden, George


Raffan, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Redwood, John
Ward, John


Renton, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rhodes James, Robert
Watts, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wheeler, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Whitney, Ray


Roe, Mrs Marion
Widdecombe, Ann


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wiggin, Jerry


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wilkinson, John


Rost, Peter
Wilshire, David


Rowe, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wolfson, Mark


Ryder, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Hon Tom
Woodcock, Mike


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Yeo, Tim


Sayeed, Jonathan
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Scott, Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Shersby, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

PUBLIC INTEREST DEFENCE

'.—(1) It shall be a defence for a person charged with a offence under this Act to prove that the disclosure or retention of the information, document or other article was in the public interest insofar as he has reasonable cause to believe that it indicated the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty or other serious misconduct.
(2) In the case of a Crown servant or government contractor charged with an offence under sections 1,2,3,4,6, or 8 of this Act, subsection (1) above shall only apply if he has taken reasonable steps to comply with any established procedures for drawing such misconduct to the attention of the appropriate authorities without effect.'.—[Mr. Corbett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Corbett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 36 at end insert 'but a disclosure which indicates the existence of a serious threat to the health or safety of the public shall not be regarded as damaging for the purposes of that subsection.'. Government amendment No. 1.

Mr Corbett: This clause is not about spies and espionage, but about public servants who, through their duties, find that the public are being misled or worse. It is also about editors and journalists who, in a free society, have a duty to expose official malpractice. The new clause tries to meet the Home Secretary's ludicrous claim that a public interest defence is somehow a "trump card". Under new clause 2 public interest would be a defence—not the trump card, but one of many in the pack—to put before court, but not the overriding defence claimed by the Minister of State in his letter to The Independent today.
The public interest defence could be used only in limited cases where there were allegations of specified types of misconduct. It is not a green light to every whistleblower in Whitehall. There would be no protection, for example, for someone who wanted to argue that Britain's nuclear weapons were against the real public interest. There would have to be "reasonable cause", demonstrated in court, to believe that serious misconduct was taking place. It would not be enough for someone to say "I think that it is happening." The evidence would have to be strong enough to persuade a jury.
6.15 pm
Another test of the defence is that the misconduct would have to be serious enough to justify disclosure in the public interest in the categories listed:
crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty or other serious misconduct … a serious threat to the health or safety of the public.
The Minister should note that the new clause and amendment No. 8 do not cover the work of the security or intelligence services, the armed forces or any other matters touching the vital interests of the nation.
There is yet another test—I am beginning to sound like the Home Secretary and his hurdles—in that a civil servant could invoke the public interest defence only if he or she had first tried to get the problem dealt with internally, but without success. That touches on the point made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who spoke of the public right to know not simply about the wrongdoing, but that the wrongdoing had taken place and had been stopped. I stress that the public interest defence would not benefit anyone whose real purpose was to embarrass the Government and who leaked information without first invoking the available procedures.
The existence of internal Civil Service remedies—the right to complain to the head of the Civil Service—does not remove the need for a public interest defence in the limited form proposed by the new clause. The public

interest defence would operate only after reasonable efforts to deal with the problem internally had failed. I stress that that defence is not available to journalists and to other non-civil servants.
Amendment No. 8 relates to the key element of the offence outlined in clause 3—that the offence does not depend on the nature of the information disclosed. That is irrelevant. Again it raised the possible prospect of the Government acting against a newspaper which planned to publish something that was simply embarrassing to the Government. In matters of public safety, such as health or a leak from Sellafield, the Government may decide that they do not want to inform the public immediately although clearly it would be in the public interest that the information should be made public speedily. Yesterday's debate about the dangers arising from salmonella and listeria illustrates the need for such information to be public.
I shall not develop my argument further because of the timetable, but the Home Secretary should consider carefully this narrower, more restricted public interest defence, which seeks to meet many of his main objections. These are modest amendments and would cause the Government no harm if accepted. The Government could still prosecute. All that would happen is that in a narrow band of specified areas a proper public interest defence would be available.
I hope that the Home Secretary will either accept the new clause or undertake to consider the issue when the Bill goes to another place, where we all hope that it will be subject to better scrutiny than the Government have allowed us here.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: This is an important new clause and we touched upon it in some length the other day. The contention is that should a crime, a fraud or an iniquity happen in Government, as the last resort—not the first resort—the aggrieved civil servant may release himself of the burden into the public domain.
This matter has been dealt with by the courts up to the House of Lords where Lord Griffiths conceded that, although he found it extremely difficult to envisage the circumstances where such a complainant had not been dealt with or satisfied internally, in the last instance it was his duty to alert—I believe that that was the word he used—the public to the impending danger.
Throughout the debate on the public defence, the Government have argued that there is no such concept in law. When confronted with the possibility of using the Obscene Publications Act, they told us that that legislation is really defective and should be amended or repealed. They ignored the fact that the very first Official Secrets Act of 1889 included a public interest defence, which was felt to be such an important legal matter involving the freedoms and rights of citizens as well as the protection of Government information that it required the distinction of the Attorney-General moving a Government amendment.
The Government have asserted the proposition that the internal structures of government are so secure and certain that there can never be a failure to remedy crime, fraud or iniquity. That proposition is profoundly distasteful to the House. Only last week, during our debate about prior publication, the Home Secretary drew our attention to hypothesis. Could we not hypothesise circumstances in


which a Government do not enable legitimate existence of fraud or crime to be remedied internally? The amendment seeks to clarify what would happen to the civil servant.
It is really a last-ditch amendment because the Government have rejected almost every other attempt to give balance to the Bill. Had there been a serious injury, it would have been possible to argue whether the injury was serious and that would provide the opportunity for a defence. However, the damage tests consistently have been set at such a trivial level that it is difficult for a defence to secure freedom on those bases. The amendment seeks to avoid the possibility of having to rely on a perverse jury which does not understand the issues, because in the case of an absolute offence it is not necessary ever to reveal what has caused the offence. Under clause 1, if a civil servant has revealed a piece of information, he has to plead whether or not he revealed the information, but there is no opportunity for the jury to examine the merits of the information that he revealed. Unless the jury is perverse, it appears that an automatic conviction would follow.
The amendment challenges the central proposition in the Bill. The Bill claims that the public or national interest is synonymous with the interests of the Government of the day.

Mr. Hurd: Not at all.

Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says, "Not at all", but the Bill asserts that the absolute offence applies to any piece of information revealed. Therefore, the determinant of whether it should apply are the Government. They hold to themselves that judgment. The House is in conflict with the assertion in the Bill that the national interest is synonymous with the interests of the Government of the day, as that is unacceptable in a free, liberal democracy. We are trying to repudiate that assertion. We accept that there may be times when the two are synonymous, but there are also times when that manifestly is not true.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to try to give some good wind to the Bill, which has limped so badly through the House, and which will go to the House of Lords in an almost contaminated form and to show that the Government's spirit is more generous in these issues. It is the interest of accountable government and responsible Ministers that they tolerate the access of the citizen to information that gives evidence of crime, fraud or iniquity that has not been revealed or resolved by internal procedures.

Mr. Rooker: The Government, in defending their rejection of new clause 2, must tell us what a civil servant should do when crime, fraud or abuse of authority occurs within Government. I accept that the Secretary of State will say that the Bill frees greater areas of the Government machine and that revealing such informatin will not be a criminal offence.
In issues such as defence procurement, the security of the state is a borderline matter, but vast amounts of public money are spent. Committees in the House have heard that tens of millions of pounds of public money have been wasted because of the operation of the equipment that is purchased, or because of the companies and contractors that supply such equipment double-charging and fiddling on the maintenance. Those issues involve crime and fraud in the normal sense. If civil servants try to follow procedures to bring such matters into the open, surely

there must be a defence, or do the Government argue that there is never crime or fraud within the Government machine? That argument does not stand up. Over the years, the House has heard evidence of instances where Government contractors have been hand in glove with those they should not be, or fiddling the taxpayer. That is crude ordinary crime and fraud, not the crime that we discussed earlier involving spies and spooks. Everyone knows what I mean by the crimes that we are discussing here.
How can it be that civil servants who are aware of such crime and trying to put matters right—but failing to do so—are not able to say that it was in the public interest that the information relating to the crime or fraud ought to be made public and therefore they used the public interest defence? The Home Secretary should be a little more forthcoming about the Government machinery dealing with cases involving civil servants than he was during the very short debate in Committee.

Mr. Aitken: I shall say a few brief words about amendment No. 8 which seeks to exclude safety matters from the scope of clause 3. I also wish to express some reservations about Government amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 8 seeks to do no more than protect our own citizens from being blocked from an alert when some foreign Government may be warning our Government about a major safety problem. Clause 3 deals with two types of disclosure—information about international relations and information supplied in confidence by another Government or international organisation. An offence is committed if disclosure is likely to jeopardise the United Kingdom abroad.
A foreign Government might easily reveal all sorts of important safety information. They might tell us that food exports from that country were suspected of containing food poisoning, or that their national airline or shipping fleet was a possible channel for smallpox or rabies. In my part of Kent, some people fear that the Channel tunnel might be a possible conduit for rabies, and if such information were passed in confidence from the French Government to our Government our people would have the right to know about it. Under clause 3 as drafted, anyone could be prevented from revealing such vital safety information. Without labouring the point unduly, I feel strongly that the huge definition in clause 3 should be qualified by allowing whistleblowing in the interests of public safety and health.
Government amendment No. 1 enlarges the already broad definition of damage in clause 3. Connoisseurs of the rift between the Secretary of State and the Minister of State may have noticed an interesting letter from the Minister of State the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) in this morning's edition of The Independent, effectively saying that the Bill contained good safeguards, including the fact that one could be prosecuted only if one had disclosed something which had caused unacceptable damage to the national interest. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been writing gaily in The Daily Telegraph about how "serious damage" is still contained in the Bill. That is a point on which I crossed swords with him in today's correspondence columns of The Daily Telegraph. Government amendment No. 1 does not just jettison the words "serious damage" or


"unacceptable damage" but enlarges "damage" still further by saying that something can be damaging by the mere
fact that it is confidential.
What is "confidential"? As I understand it, a Government document or overseas document becomes confidential as soon as that word is stamped on it. This is an unacceptable enlargement. We all know that civil servants in particular, no doubt foreign civil servants as much as anybody, overclassify and stamp matters as confidential when they are not. Therefore, subject to what my right hon. Friend has to say in explaining the Government amendment, I have grave reservations about it.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I wish to express my doubts about new clause 2. The House has heard the arguments about a public interest defence and I do not propose to repeat them. However, we have decided that secret service officers or those who are notified are pledged to a life in which they do not reveal matters relating to their work, and the new clause drives a coach and horses through that provision. The Security Service Bill contains adequate internal mechanisms for their complaints.
We have to deal with the harm test in relation to all civil servants, who are not notified. That is what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) was driving at. The harm test still applies to all those people. If they wish, they can make disclosures, providing they are not harmful to the national interest. We have said time and again that disclosures can be made to other Crown servants, including the police and Members of Parliament, provided the Members of Parliament use that information responsibly and pursue it through the proper channels or, if they feel that it is sufficiently important, they can use the privileges of the House.
he real danger in the clause is that there is no consideration of the damage that can be done to the national interest. The person disclosing the information may think that it would be in the public interest. However, although that person may be honest, he may be misguided and may feel that he has reasonable cause to believe that
it indicated the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty or other serious misconduct.
What if that is not so? We are left with untold damage done to the national interest by somebody who acted in good faith when there were clearly other ways of dealing with the matter.
There are adequate safeguards in the Bill due to the harm test. We must not underestimate the importance of the harm test as a defence that can be used by civil servants who are aware of information such as that to which the hon. Member for Erdington referred.

Mr. Gorst: The presumption that lies behind much of what my hon. Friend and others have been saying is that one is concerned with abuses and wrongdoing. That is not necessarily the case when we are dealing with health and safety. I instance the continual outbreaks of Legionnaire's disease or perhaps some other health hazard which has not yet been explored. It may be that, in such circumstances, what is in the public interest is not the revelation of the

information so much as the revelation of the procedure which requires reform. We all know that bureaucracies are resistant to changing their methods. It may be that public debate is necessary. I foresee that Governments may wish to suppress that. How would my hon. Friend answer that?

Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend forgets that the Bill is a major liberalising measure—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but they seem to forget that only five categories are covered by the Bill. All other Government matters are now free from prosecution under the criminal law.
On health and safety, the harm test would apply only if something had been disclosed under confidential circumstances by an overseas power. If someone makes a disclosure, he is able to argue in the courts that the disclosure of information affecting health and safety did no harm to the national interest. That is a defence open to him. In assessing whether the prosecution should be brought, the Attorney-General would look at all those factors before making his decision.
The new clause will drive a coach and horses through the spirit of the Bill. It undermines the principle behind it—the harm test. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject it.

Mr. Hurd: The Opposition, with customary support from some of my hon. Friends, have made a second attempt to produce a public interest defence clause. I acknowledge that it is a narrower clause than before. In unrestricted time we spent an entire Committee session on that principle. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) was brief and I can be brief, too. However, this is a useful debate because it enables us to encapsulate the main principle involved. The hon. Member for Erdington has done that and so have my hon. Friends.
There is no overarching right of public prosecution in the Bill. The discretion, which now rests with the prosecuting authorities over a huge area, is removed from the bulk of that area and whittled down in almost all the remainder. There is no overarching right of public prosecution in order to protect some vague concept of public interest, let alone to save the Government from a red face. Those are the major changes in the Bill.

Mr. Aitken: I know that it is part of my right hon. Friend's great thesis that the Bill is a liberalising measure and that the discretion of the prosecutors is narrowed to a small area. However, before he goes overboard on that, could he tell us the last occasion on which a prosecution was launched under the 1911 Act in any of the categories outside the five categories that he has, so called, narrowed it down to?

Mr. Hurd: That is not the point. I have just heard an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) who is seriously concerned about Legionnaire's disease. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) was concerned in Committee about environmental safety. My right hon. Friend told us with example after example how he had been told by officials that it was illegal—not wrong—to give him information that he thought he should have about environmental safety. Therefore, we are not talking about something that is abstract. That is a real fear and worry, and according to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, the Father of the House, officials have


said on numerous occasions that they cannot give the information because it is illegal. We are sweeping that away. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North can sleep in his bed without worries about Legionnaire's disease, safe in the knowledge that if people now say that information in the Department of Health about Legionnaire's disease is confidential and cannot be revealed because of section 2, that argument does not apply. That is true except in the limited case sketched by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). Of course, it may still be wrong to release that information and there may be disciplinary consequences if it is released. That would be true even in the Labour party and in any other organisation. We are talking about the criminal law.

Mr. Aitken: We are talking about section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.

Mr. Hurd: Yes, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North said that I was talking about a hypothetical situation. Our speeches in Committee prove that that is nonsense.

Mr. Gorst: I am sorry if I misled my right hon. Friend in that respect. Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was concerned with information that might be exchanged between Governments. I merely mentioned Legionnaire's disease as an issue that is constantly cropping up and I withdraw the illustration if my right hon. Friend thinks that it misleads him further. I am concerned about information on health and safety matters, exchanged between Governments, which would be disallowed under the Bill. If I am wrong, I hope that my right hon. Friend will say so.

Mr. Hurd: I follow my hon. Friend's narrowing of the point. I am sorry if I interpreted him too widely.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Hurd: Let me answer one point at a time.
The information to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North referred would then have to pass the harm test. If he looks at the harm test in clause 3, he will see that he would have to invent a fairly ingenious hypothesis to conceive of circumstances in which the prosecution could argue that the disclosure about Legionnaire's disease, received in confidence from a foreign Government, would prejudice or jeopardise United Kingdom interests abroad. That is the test, not embarrassment to the Government.

Mr. Gorst: What about AIDS?

Mr. Hurd: The same point would apply.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The important point, which I am sure my right hon. Friend takes on board, is that we are considering only offences under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which involves the climate of secrecy in Whitehall. There are, of course, about 80 other pieces of legislation that make the disclosure of information a criminal offence, on environmental matters, pollution controls and similar matters, and such disclosures will remain a criminal offence after the Bill is passed.

Mr. Hurd: I am talking about the scope of the Bill. I hope that I have dealt with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North.
I turn to new clause 2, although I believe that it was right for me to have been distracted from it. I shall try to show briefly the damage that might result from the system that the Opposition seek to erect. The Bill protects, quite properly, information that needs to be protected from disclosure. if that protection fails, or anyone is given cause or encouragement to believe that the protection is in some way a paper tiger, the Bill would fail in one of its two main purposes. It would give a signal of encouragement, not of deterrence. It would say that as long as some allegedly serious misconduct, or any neglect at all, in the performance of official duties can be identified and can be argued to have been reported to no effect, it is all right to disclose that information whatever damage has been done. That is the thrust of the new clause. I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Erdington really believes that that is a sensible way to proceed or that it is safe.
I return to what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said on 2 February. He said in a flourish that no one
would attempt to justify revealing, say, the battle plans of the British Army of the Rhine".—[Official Report, 2 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 457.]
He is right; no one would. Yet it would be perfectly possible under the amendment.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: That would be an offence under section 1.

Mr. Hurd: I disagree because section 1 deals with espionage. We are talking about section 2. The disclosure I have mentioned would not necessarily fall under section 1

Mr. Shepherd: Espionage is a section 1 offence.

Mr. Hurd: It would not necessarily fall under section 1.
Let us consider another form of serious revelation. When we were talking about prior publication, I referred to talk about the techniques of counter-terrorism. Whatever example one chooses, I am making the point that the new clause is not balanced, because it provides an overarching defence. The hon. Member for Erdington says that it does not, but I believe that he misunderstands it. It is an overarching defence because it allows any amount of damage to be done as long as the defendant can prove—and he has only to prove it on the balance of probability—that the information disclosed gave him reasonable cause to believe that it showed some form of "serious misconduct" or any neglect of official duty. It is odd that the Opposition, who are constantly twitting me for not putting the word "serious" into the Bill, did not put it into the amendment. They refer not to "serious misconduct" but to any "neglect…of official duty". That is the crucial point. The argument of the Opposition and the proponents of a public interest defence—even defined narrowly—is that it should be allowable for somebody to make a disclosure, however great the damage that might result from that, provided that the information disclosed gave him reasonable cause to believe that it showed some form of serious misconduct or any neglect of official duty.
There is a further point about timing which the Opposition have not hauled on board. If a disclosure were made, damage would result and that would be past recall. There would then be an argument before the courts about whether there was justification under any of the different


public interest defences that had been proposed. The public servant concerned might be able to show that he sincerely thought that he had reason to believe that his disclosure showed some neglect of official duty. But the damage would have been done. The public servant might or might not be convicted, depending on what the jury decided, but the damage could not be repaired. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence could not run the armed services—and nor could the Security Service or the police be run—on the basis of the damage being done, with an argument then taking place between lawyers on a definition of whether disclosure was justified.

Mr. Corbett: I do not know why the Home Secretary is concentrating on security, intelligence and the armed forces. He knows as well as I do that clause I would cover the security and intelligence forces and that disclosure would be an absolute offence. Is he seriously arguing that anybody would remotely consider a defence of, say, neglect of the performance of official duty if he had leaked the battle plans of the Army of the Rhine? That does not make sense.

Mr. Hurd: No, it does not and that is why we oppose the new clause. I am not in favour of balance in this matter. I can see the argument that we should enable a balance, but that is not even what is being proposed. The new clause proposes that if any damage is done, however serious, the public servant would then, after the damage had been done, be able to say that he had reasonable cause to believe that the information indicated some form of serious misconduct or any neglect of official duty.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I want to make a minor, but important, point. Surely my right hon. Friend is misreading the new clause when he speaks of "any neglect". Neglect has to be read in conjunction with the later words which say, "other serious misconduct". It is plain that the "serious misconduct" applies also to neglect.

Mr. Hurd: I am advised that that is not so. There may be loose drafting there, but I am not resting my argument entirely on that point. I am advised that, as it stands, the neglect of official duty is not qualified. The Opposition new clause—

Mr. Corbett: It is an all-party new clause, not an Opposition one.

Mr. Hurd: I was giving the hon. Gentleman a compliment. The new clause mentions the existence of internal remedies, but does not apply any judgment about who is to decide, and it would be perfectly possible for the public servant concerned to gallop through whatever remedies were available in a perfunctory way, if it were for him to decide whether those remedies had been exhausted. I do not think that the attempt to deal with that is adequate. If only because of the time scale that I am talking about, I do not believe that to have the damage first and then the argument within the narrow sphere of the Bill is a risk that any Government would advise the House to take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) made two points about amendment No. 8. In general, the harm test would apply to all the examples that he gave. The harm test in this sphere is exacting. However,

I wonder whether my hon. Friend really thinks that it is right and automatically justified that any terrorist threat reaching us from abroad should be disclosed, however alarmist.—[Interruption.] Well, amendment No. 8 would do that. It would clearly be a matter of public safety. The harm test would adequately protect the position that my hon. Friend wants to protect but in a few cases that would fall within the scope of the amendment it would not be axiomatic that disclosure should be unprotected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South also dealt with amendment No. 1, which stands in my name, and which fulfils an obligation that I made to see whether we could clarify this matter. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend thinks that I have managed to do so. I have wrestled intellectually with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on this and I hope that he at least is satisfied.
It is now spelt out that the harm test applies in both cases. The harm test about British interests abroad applies whether the prosecution argues that it was the contents of the disclosure that passed the harm test or the fact of disclosure. In either case, the prosecution would have to prove harm and in neither case would it be an absolute offence.

Mr. Rees: I had been going to intervene, but the Home Secretary has now sat down. I wonder whether he can explain the problem that I am facing. I used to think—and I still think—that under section 2 the Attorney-General of the day, who holds that position as legal adviser to the Government—not in any political sense—advises on prosecution and, as things are at the moment, makes his decision in the public interest. The Home Secretary will remember that we touched on this tangentially earlier when the former Solicitor-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), made it clear that the words "public interest" are used in the remit of the Attorney-General in a different way from the use of "public interest" in discussion of the Bill. Nevertheless, under the Bill, the Attorney-General has to consent to prosecution.
In deciding whether there shall be a criminal prosecution and on the Attorney-General evaluating some of the criteria that we have been discussing, such as the harm test and whether harm may be caused, could it be that it would be in the public interest not to prosecute? I recall that in some instances it was thought better to keep quiet than to let the information get out and that course of action has been regarded as being in the public interest. Is that public interest aspect still present in this Bill?

Mr. Hurd: The role of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General as the prosecuting party and the way in which he discharges his role are not affected by the Bill, except to the extent that they are greatly restricted in the ways that I have described, which are central to the Bill. The way in which my right hon. and learned Friend operates within the scope of the criminal law as it will remain under the Bill will be of exactly the same quality, character and nature and his decision making will be exactly the same as that with which the right hon. Gentleman is familiar.

Mr. Maclennan: I recognise that the Secretary of State has a closed mind on the issue of a public interest defence


and therefore I do not propose to pursue him on that, although I found some of his arguments profoundly unsatisfactory.
I wish to probe a little more into amendment No. 1. It seems to me that the new version of clause 3(3) reveals a catch-all that is much greater and more seriously damaging than that which appeared even in the original drafting. The Home Secretary has said that the amendment was intended to make it clear that the harm test applied. However, I submit that that is not so in any meaningful sense. A presumption of harm flows from this subsection when viewed in conjunction with subsection (2)(b).
It is a difficult argument to make, but I must try to do so. Clause 3 provides that a Crown servant or Government contractor is guilty of an offence if he makes a damaging disclosure and that that disclosure will be deemed to be damaging
if it is of information or of a document or article
which is likely to have any of those effects that have been spelled out.
Amendment No. 1 states:
In the case of information or a document or article …

(a) the fact that it is confidential, or
(b) its nature or contents,

may be sufficient to establish for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above that the information, document or article is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of the effects there mentioned.
If that is a harm test, it is one which it would be extremely easy for the prosecution to satisfy because it seeks to define the document in terms of its likely impact, not its actual impact. As the clause deals with matters that may be extremely trivial, and makes it an offence to publish such information because it is described as
any information, document or other article relating to international relations",
that is a catch-all phrase if ever there was one. It is too wide a definition.
It is unacceptable that we should create a crime that is susceptible to punishment of up to two years' imprisonment for the publication of a document that may be such that its unauthorised disclosure would be unlikely to have any of the effects that have been mentioned. The amendment is a wholly unacceptable attempt to clarify what was perhaps obscure before, but was certainly worrying. However, now it is no longer only worrying; it is deeply disturbing.

Sir Ian Gilmour: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary deployed his usual forceful arguments against the public interest defence but the arguments that he advanced against it are totally inapplicable. He referred first to revealing the battle plans of the British Army of the Rhine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, that would clearly fall under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act, but, even if it did not, the idea that anyone could justify that as being in the public interest on the grounds that he might have been given
reasonable cause to believe that it indicated the existence of crime, fraud,
clearly could not be advanced as a defence. It would be laughed out of court and the jury would not look at it. Surely the same applies to the other example given by my right hon. Friend about revealing counter-terrorist

operations. The idea that somebody could say, "I did that because, after all, there was a little crime about" simply would not work. It is not—

Mr. Hurd: Indeed, it might not work. The jury might not be convinced and then whatever harm had been done would have been done and there would be no rectifying it, but it would be a small satisfaction if the chap went to prison.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The chap is going to prison anyway. He is unlikely to have his decision about revealing this information determined by whether there will be a public interest offence. He will be a man, certainly on the examples given by my right hon. Friend, who will be either off his head or a near traitor. So the idea that he will be influenced by a provision such as this is not applicable. In other words, my right hon. Friend has adduced a way out of arguments that would not apply to any of the examples that we have in mind.
7 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) asked, in relation to this being a great liberalising measure, when there had last been prosecutions in any of the categories that are to be removed from the Official Secrets Act. I understood the Home Secretary to admit that there had not been any for a long time. But he said that it was still a liberalising measure because civil servants in the Department of the Environment would no longer be able to use the Official Secrets Act as a reason for not giving information.
I cannot regard that explanation as bringing the Bill within the category of a liberalising measure because, as my hon. Friend said, they will still be able not to give the information. In other words, one rather unserious excuse has been removed from them, and that is the main reason given by my right hon. Friend to justify his claim that this is a liberalising measure. It is tidying up the law—I appreciate that and that is, no doubt, a good step to take—but in tidying it up it is tightening it elsewhere, which, I am afraid, makes it the opposite of a liberalising measure.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I have hesitated to speak before this point because I missed the beginning of today's proceedings, for which I apologise to the House.
Not for the first time the Home Secretary has got matters seriously wrong. The expression in new clause 2,
neglect in the performance of official duty or other serious misconduct",
by definition qualifies the previous reference to,
crime, fraud, abuse of authority
as being serious misconduct. On that count the right hon. Gentleman is speaking nonsense.
The Home Secretary goes on to say that the danger in giving a public interest defence is that the cat will already be out of the bag. He gave as an example the battle plans of BAOR and said that by the time the matter came to court the secret would be out. But we are talking in terms of a defence, and it would be no defence for me to release the battle plans of BAOR and say that I thought fraud had been committed in Squadron No. 2. That would not be the point. It would have come out because I had already released those battle plans. At that point, not at any later stage, the facts would have come out.
I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about Government amendment No. 1. The fact that something is confidential


could of itself be sufficient to establish guilt under the previous subsection. It cannot be right, with such contorted thinking, to leave the measure without any public interest defence.
In the same way as it has been argued that the law of confidentiality cannot be extended to find people guilty simply to cover up an iniquity—in the words of the last century—so it cannot be the case here that a crime—be it fraud or whatever—revealed in this process must automatically carry a verdict of guilty because a public interest defence cannot be adduced.
I return to the example that I have given in the past and to which I have not yet received a reply from the Home Secretary, and that is the position we face on the Clyde. If it is known that a nuclear leak has taken place, and it is in the interest of the communities there that that fact should be revealed, the decision to reveal cannot be defended in the courts because the harm that would have been done would come under clause 2 in relation to defence.
We cannot leave the Bill—any more than we could leave the law of confidence, the concept that the Government have been fond of using in recent years—without a defence. Equally, if there is no public interest defence in this case, the Home Secretary is stripping out almost all possible forms of defence, despite the fact that we are dealing with areas which are prone to offence of one kind or another. That is the enormity of what the right hon. Gentleman is doing, sometimes on the basis of grammar. I hope that he will look at the whole matter again.

Mr. Dykes: I, too, support new clause 2 and will address my remarks to that and to the other amendments in this series. I am glad that anxiety has been expressed about Government amendment No. 1 because the more one considers it, the more worried one becomes lest it represents an unsatisfactory replacement of the present provision.
I hope that in commenting on new clause 2 I shall not repeat too much of what was said last week in Committee. I, too, am astonished by the example that the Home Secretary gave about a revelation of top secret battle plans. I cannot see how that could come into the context of an adjudication in the area we are now discussing. So inextricably and exclusively wrapped up is the issue in clause 1, like a massive piece of treason, espionage or a combination of both, that even if there were, coincidentally and surprisingly, some conjunction of internal departmental serious misconduct, and so on, one would have to envisage two separate cases. There would be no connection between the two. Even if they took place in the same court building, they would be a million miles apart intellectually, politically and constitutionally.
Although it has been suggested by Opposition Members that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a closed mind on this, I hope that he will give further thought to the possibility of accepting new clause 2 and will further examine amendment No. 8. I am disturbed by the fact that the implication of the Government's response is always that a person concerned in a clause 2 case would be rushing hastily into some form of public disclosure. In the new clause we are thinking in realistic terms of the tail-end of a long process of internal investigation through the proper channels before any public disclosure has been

made. It is not like a journalist writing an article about policy. Here we have someone who, with great psychological pain and travail, feels moved to reveal something basically wrong and rotten by way of a happening or misconduct. I hope that it will not have occurred in a Government Department, and it is to be hoped that all Departments are free of such matters, but such things do happen from time to time for various reasons, perhaps out of moral weakness. Even inefficiency can produce misconduct and should be revealed.

Mr. Rooker: The Bill makes it a criminal offence to point the finger at criminality.

Mr. Dykes: That was the central objection voiced both in Committee and on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is known for his careful choice of words, used the expression "monstrous" to describe the peril facing the body politic and the public if we permit the Bill to be passed in its present form.
I was postulating that it would be a long, agonising process for the person who was going to blow the whistle or spill the beans. One can imagine the agony that he would feel and the pacing up and down, as it were, that would occur in the mind and spirit of a conscientious public servant, for example, in using the proper channels. followed by lengthy investigations, with the matter passing up through the various layers of scrutiny internally by his respected superiors—one hopes that they would be respected.
By the same reciprocal token, that would involve the same massive concentration of mind on the part of those superior officials having to respond to that person's complaints. They must not brush them aside. Various books have been written about the Civil Service of the past, describing how such matters could be brushed aside, with career references being made to those concerned to ensure that they concentrated their minds on the real issue, which was keeping their mouths shut, and preventing them, if necessary, from pursuing the matter. That would be a wholly beneficial process which would help all future Governments and it should therefore be welcomed. If it were an implicit part of the Bill, that would satisfy the whole House.
The new clause is extremely solemn and important. Once again, regrettably and sadly, we see that except for one important exception that we discussed earlier today—I repeat that I have sympathy for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's position and the problems and pressures that he faces—the Government are not prepared to entertain any indispensable improvements. The public interest defence surely comes into that, ranking equally with publication as being absolutely ineluctable and indispensable elements in improving the Bill. If that improvement is not made, it will be a matter of regret—and something that the Government themselves will regret later.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 3

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 3, line 37, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) In the case of information or a document or article within subsection (1)(b) above—



(a) the fact that it is confidential, or
(b) its nature or contents,
may be sufficient to establish for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above that the information, document or article is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of the effects there mentioned.'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 6

INFORMATION RESULTING FROM UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURES OR ENTRUSTED IN CONFIDENCE

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 22, leave out 'a State which is'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 3 to 7.

Mr. Hurd: The amendment simply reflects an undertaking that I gave in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 6, line 37, leave out 'a State which is'.

Clause 7

AUTHORISED DISCLOSURES

Amendment made: No. 4. in page 7, line 28, leave out 'a State which is'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 13

OTHER INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 5, in page 10, line 41, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (3)'.

No. 6, in page 10, line 42, after 'which', insert 'only'.

No. 7, in page 11, line 4, at end insert—
'(3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) above whether only States are members of an organisation, any member which is itself an organisation of which only States are members, or which is an organ of such an organisation, shall be treated as a State.'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must point out that the procedure that we have just observed illustrates how wrong it is to introduce guillotines because they do not allow right hon. and hon. Members properly to discuss amendments in which they have an interest.

Mr. Hattersley: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 10, line 40, at end insert
'but do not include any disclosure made to a solicitor for the purpose of seeking legal advice'.
The amendment concerns the right of an individual, such as a member of the security services or a person classified under the Bill, to consult his solicitor if he has reason to believe that he is subject to an illegal act by the security services. Hansard for 16 February records at column 503 that a statement on that subject was made by the Minister of State, Home Office purporting—I believe that is the fashionable word—to raise a point of order. He made that statement with the contented air of a man who was suddenly sure that he had mastered his brief. Unfortunately, the Law Society's judgment of his comments about the relationship between solicitors and their clients remains what it was before the Minister's

clarification. As we need a statement that we can examine before 7.30 pm, I shall describe the Law Society's judgment as clearly as I can.
The Law Society ought to know something about the obligations of solicitors, and it ought to have a locus in respect of the protection of solicitors in defending their clients. The society makes a point that I made rather more feebly and inadequately in response to the Minister's original, late-night, surprise announcement.
Clause 7 concerns and defines authorised disclosures. A disclosure by an individual is legal and authorised
if, and only if, it is made in accordance with his official duty.
The Bill specifies who may make disclosures. It also describes the circumstances in which a person may make disclosures, and shall therefore be authorised to do so. Clause 7 does not list among the authorised persons to whom disclosures may be made a solicitor retained by an individual. Nor does it include among the authorised purposes a disclosure for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the engaged solicitor is not an authorised person, and neither is a disclosure to that solicitor authorised.
As clause 7 stipulates the circumstances in which disclosures shall be legal, it does not need a major logician to conclude that all other revelations or disclosures will be unauthorised and illegal. The Minister of State, Home Office said that it was right to draw such a conclusion in the context of the Bill, but added—albeit late at night, but with further clarification a fortnight ago—that the privilege that affects a solicitor's relationship with his client overrides that provision.
7.15 pm
When the Minister first made that point, some concern and doubt were expressed about whether the relationship between a solicitor and his client is a qualified privilege is not, anyway, absolute in all circumstances, and does not provide absolute protection. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) asked whether the privilege that obtained in conventional and common law could somehow supersede statute law and an Act that expressly and explicitly rules out consultation between client and solicitor in the circumstances I described. However, in the Minister's second statement, he brushed all such arguments aside, saying that he had taken legal advice and had no doubt that the relationship between solicitor and client is privileged and, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill and even though a solicitor is not an authorised person, nor could become one, a client could approach his solicitor in the circumstances I described.
As the Law Society had raised that matter with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the first place, we inevitably asked the society for its judgment on the Minister's statement. Its initial reaction was that the Minister's view was a "red herrring" that did not begin to meet the facts—the term "red herring" is the society's not mine. The society categorically states:
The fact that a communication is privileged does not provide a defence if the act of communication is itself a crime.
As a solicitor is not an authorised person, as consultation with a solicitor is not an authorised activity, and as only those persons and activities specified in clause 7 enjoy legality, the act of revelation to a solicitor would be a crime. If the Law Society is to be believed, and if its judgment is to be given any credence, the protection that the Minister described cannot exist.
I wish to leave the Attorney-General with as much time as possible to answer that point. In any event, as the most lay of laymen, I am reluctant to cite the precedents cited by the Law Society. However, it informs me that the leading case is that of Regina v. Cox and Railton, which established that all communications between a solicitor and his client are not privileged and cannot be privileged if they are themselves concerned with the commissioning of events and if they are themselves a crime because of the nature of the communication.
I also draw to the Attorney-General's attention the case of Francis and Francis v. Central Criminal Court. The society categorically states that no protection exists for a member of the secret services who, believing that he has been treated illegally by the process of the services, approaches a solicitor for advice on the way in which he can obtain redress.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can assure the House that the danger that I have described does not exist, but there is only one way in which I, at least, can be completely convinced. If it is possible for a solicitor to be consulted in the way I described, there can be no possible objection to making the amendment to the Bill. If the situation is as clear and as favourable to the solicitor's prospective client as was blandly stated by the Minister two weeks ago, all that has to be done, to make everyone aware of that, is for the Government to accept the amendment.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): It may be convenient if I express my opinion at this stage on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I shall do it in the orthodox way of addressing myself first to the effect of the amendment and then dealing specifically with the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
Let us imagine that a Crown servant has in his possession, by virtue of his position, an important document relating to defence which is protected under clause 2. Let us suppose that he takes it into his head to bargain with rival bidders in the media for the damaging disclosure—we will assume that it would be damaging—of that document which is of high value to the media. If he did that, of course it would be an offence under the Bill.
Now let us suppose that for fear that he may not be paid he consults his solicitor in advance about how payment may be secured. [Interruption.] Let not the right hon. Gentleman say that he is concerned that this may be a fanciful scenario because the whole thrust of the Opposition's point in this regard is fanciful in practical terms. Let us suppose that for fear that he may not be paid the Crown servant consults his solicitor in advance about how payment may best be secured, and, for the purpose of consulting him, he discloses the document to him.
The amendment would deprive that disclosure to the solicitor—criminal though its purpose would undoubtedly be—of any criminality under the provisions of the Bill, because the scheme of the Bill makes disclosure the kernel of the offence. I should have thought that that would be, in the view of any hon. Member, a dangerous and absurd result. It cannot sensibly have been asked for by anybody and there could be no justification for it. What is more, it would damage the law of legal professional privilege, and for the first time it would extend the protection of legal

professional privilege to anyone using a solicitor for a criminal purpose. [Interruption.] No, he did not; I will come to that point.
Why should we change the law to do that? In section 10(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Parliament expressly excluded items held with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose from that Act's definition of items subject to legal privilege. The context was the search and seizure provisions of the Act. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will remember that, because we were both on the Standing Committee on the Bill. That was a reflection of the common law rule, dating back for at least 100 years, certainly to the Cox and Railton case cited by the right hon. Gentleman. As recently as 1986 Parliament adopted it once again in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
In Cox and Railton in 1884 it was held that not all communications between a solicitor and his client are privileged from disclosure; only those passing between them in professional confidence and in the legitimate course of the professional employment of a solicitor are privileged. The headnote of the case said:
Communications made to a solicitor by his client before the commission of a crime for the purpose of being guided or helped in the commission of it are not privileged from disclosure.
In a case decided last year—Francis and Francis—again mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, it was decided that the 1884 case still defined the extent of the exception to the rule of legal professional privilege. That is enough to dispose of the amendment. Why should we make extraordinarily dangerous and absurd change?
Out of deference to the argument I will go further. My hon. Friend the Minister of State did not say that privilege overrides the terms of the statute. That would be wrong. What my hon. Friend said was:
Legal professional privilege acts to prevent the production in evidence of such a communication and hence to deprive of its foundation any prosecution that might ever be sought to be founded on such a communication in the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman envisaged in his first point of order. But of course, it is well established that anyone who, when communicating with his solicitor, seeks the latter's help in the furtherance of some criminal purpose is disqualified in respect of that communication from the benefit of privilege.
He also said:
The function of legal professional privilege is to aid the administration of justice and not to aid crime. But such a person's position is quite different from that of someone who discloses information to his solicitor in the process of seeking advice in good faith about his own legal position in relation to it."—[Official Report, 16 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 503.]
[Interruption.] Of course it is the point. What we are discussing in this scenario is that someone who is told improperly under the Bill that his telephone line is being tapped goes to his solicitor to ask what is his position in criminal law in relation to that. It would be idle and fanciful to suppose that in doing that he espoused any criminal purpose. He may say, "I have been told about this. I am asking you what my position in law is."

Mr. Hattersley: The Attorney-General says that it would be idle to suppose that anyone who went to a solicitor saying, "I have been told by a member of the security services that my telephone is being tapped," was espousing a criminal purpose. The Home Secretary told us that the act of going to any individual, other than one who was authorised, and making that statement was in itself a criminal act. That is the problem.

The Attorney-General: There is nothing between the two sides on this rather technical point. Criminality attaches to that by reason of the wording of the clause. The whole point is that the foundation for any criminal prosecution arising out of it is removed by reason of the operation of legal professional privilege, because legal professional privilege protects all communications and disclosures between a client and his solicitor which take place in the ordinary professional employment of a solicitor. That is what was said in the Cox and Railton case. But there is, and has always been, excluded—the House insisted on the exclusion in the two recent Acts that I mentioned—those communications which are done to further a criminal purpose. [Interruption.] It is not something to get excited about; it needs close attention.
The purpose of legal professional privilege is to further the administration of justice. It cannot possibly be said that any communication with a criminal purpose can be said to be in furtherance of the administration of justice; it is in furtherance of crime. That was the very point that my hon. Friend made. It is clearly established that the rule exists for the protection of the client to enable him to confide unreservedly in his legal advisers. The protection of privilege from disclosure is part of the law of evidence. Like all that law, it is intended to further the administration of justice. The administration of justice is not furthered by preventing any evidence from being given in court of a disclosure made to a solicitor in order to further a criminal purpose. That is why the law is not such an ass as to extend protection in those circumstances.
It is a very different matter when a disclosure occurs by reason of a man asking his solicitor where he stands in law, with no criminal purpose at all. It is very much in the interests of the administration of justice that there should not be able to be levelled against him in support of a criminal charge the very fact that he sought such advice. So I endorse in every particular what my hon. Friend said.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The House has two difficulties. The first is that, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, the act itself is a criminal offence. If the act itself is a criminal offence it is difficult to see how the privilege applies. The second problem is that, whatever my right hon. and learned Friend may say, what happens in the House will not be considered by the court. The court will look only at the face of the legislation and in doing so may take a different view from that of my right hon. and learned Friend.

The Attorney-General: I am sure that the court will look much further than the face of the legislation if this point ever becomes a practical consideration; I emphasise that. Of course, it would have to imply the consent of the Attorney-General of the day to any such prosecution. [Interruption.] I mentioned that because we are talking about realities, but I shall deal with this point on the law of legal professional privilege. As is plain from the argument adopted by the judge in the Cox and Railton case, the judgment of the court for Crown cases reserved is entirely consistent with what I have said. Leaving out any consideration of prosecutorial discretion, the protection given in these circumstances deprives of its foundation any prosecution that might ever be sought—

It being half past Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the Resolutions this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 309.

Division No. 111]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Gordon, Mildred


Aitken, Jonathan
Gorst, John


Alton, David
Gould, Bryan


Anderson, Donald
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Armstrong, Hilary
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Grocott, Bruce


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hardy, Peter


Barron, Kevin
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Battle, John
Haynes, Frank


Beckett, Margaret
Heffer, Eric S.


Beith, A. J.
Henderson, Doug


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Holland, Stuart


Blair, Tony
Home Robertson, John


Bradley, Keith
Hood, Jimmy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Howells, Geraint


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cartwright, John
Illsley, Eric


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ingram, Adam


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Janner, Greville


Clay, Bob
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clelland, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kennedy, Charles


Cohen, Harry
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lambie, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lamond, James


Corbett, Robin
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cryer, Bob
Litherland, Robert


Cummings, John
Livsey, Richard


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Darling, Alistair
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Loyden, Eddie


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McAllion, John


Dewar, Donald
McAvoy, Thomas


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Doran, Frank
Macdonald, Calum A.


Douglas, Dick
McFall, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKelvey, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McLeish, Henry


Eadie, Alexander
Maclennan, Robert


Eastham, Ken
McNamara, Kevin


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McTaggart, Bob


Fatchett, Derek
McWilliam, John


Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max


Fearn, Ronald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marek, Dr John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Flannery, Martin
Martlew, Eric


Flynn, Paul
Maxton, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael


Foster, Derek
Meale, Alan


Foulkes, George
Michael, Alun


Fraser, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fyfe, Maria
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Galbraith, Sam
Morgan, Rhodri


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morley, Elliott


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mullin, Chris






Murphy, Paul
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Norris, Steve
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


O'Brien, William
Soley, Clive


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spearing, Nigel


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Parry, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


Patchett, Terry
Stott, Roger


Pendry, Tom
Strang, Gavin


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prescott, John
Turner, Dennis


Primarolo, Dawn
Vaz, Keith


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wall, Pat


Radice, Giles
Wallace, James


Randall, Stuart
Walley, Joan


Redmond, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wareing, Robert N.


Richardson, Jo
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilson, Brian


Rooker, Jeff
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Salmond, Alex
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Wray, Jimmy


Sheerman, Barry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Allen Adams and


Short, Clare
Mr. Allen McKay.


Skinner, Dennis





NOES


Adley, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William


Amess, David
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Amos, Alan
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chope, Christopher


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Churchill, Mr


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cope, Rt Hon John


Beggs, Roy
Couchman, James


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bendall, Vivian
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davis, David (Booth ferry)


Benyon, W.
Day, Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Devlin, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dorrell, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Body, Sir Richard
Dunn, Bob


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eggar, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginla
Evennett, David


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Favell, Tony


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Forth, Eric


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Franks, Cecil


Buck, Sir Antony
Freeman, Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
French, Douglas


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gill, Christopher


Butcher, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butler, Chris
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa





Gow, Ian
Madel, David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Major, Rt Hon John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mans, Keith


Gregory, Conal
Marland, Paul


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Marlow, Tony


Grist, Ian
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mates, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hannam, John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mellor, David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Miller, Sir Hal


Harris, David
Mills, Iain


Haselhurst, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman


Hawkins, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hayes, Jerry
Mitchell, Sir David


Hayward, Robert
Moate, Roger


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Heddle, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hill, James
Moss, Malcolm


Hind, Kenneth
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Mudd, David


Holt, Richard
Neale, Gerrard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Needham, Richard


Howard, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Neubert, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hunter, Andrew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Page, Richard


Irvine, Michael
Paice, James


Irving, Charles
Patnick, Irvine


Jack, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Jackson, Robert
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Janman, Tim
Pawsey, James


Jessel, Toby
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Price, Sir David


Key, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Kilfedder, James
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rathbone, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Redwood, John


Knapman, Roger
Renton, Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Riddick, Graham


Knowles, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lang, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rowe, Andrew


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ryder, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lilley, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Speller, Tony






Spicer. Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Squire, Robin
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walden, George


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Steen, Anthony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Ward, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Watts, John


Stokes, Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wheeler, John


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Ray


Summerson, Hugo
Widdecombe, Ann


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilshire, David


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thorne, Neil
Woodcock, Mike


Thurnham, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tracey, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tredinnick. David



Trippier, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Tony Durant.


Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6

INFORMATION ENTRUSTED IN CONFIDENCE TO OTHER STATES OR INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 40, after 'above', insert
'but "international relations" shall not include any information relating primarily to the domestic affairs of the United Kingdom whose unauthorised disclosure in the United Kingdom would not he an offence under sections 1, 2 or 4 of this Act.'.
Under the provisions in the Bill, the phrase "international relations" provides a catch-all way of arguing that the disclosure of information is a criminal offence. On a previous occasion when the Committee considered clause 6, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) drew attention to the fact that clause 6 created a highly anomalous situation in which information communicated abroad might be regarded as criminal, yet if the same information had been communicated at home it would not be regarded in that way.
Much trivial matter passes between our Government and other Governments, particularly within the European Community. Under this clause, much of that will be caught and its disclosure could result in an offence being committed. That could attract a penalty of two years' imprisonment.
We complained in the Committee that the phrase "international relations" was too wide and we tried to remove it. The purpose of the amendment is to try to narrow the definition of "international relations" to recognise that there might be certain matters which affect the conduct of our relations with other countries, but there are other matters about which we may be in communication with other countries which are essentially domestic and should not attract a criminal penalty if they are disclosed.
7.45 pm
In that respect, the right hon. Member for Worthing referred to such information as our Government's proposals about VAT rates, which might be discussed with another European Government in relation to an EEC proposal to harmonise VAT. The Minister might argue that the revelation about VAT rates must still pass the harm test before an offence is committed. Of course that is so, but we know that the harm test is a very low hurdle to leap. The simple test is whether the disclosure is likely to jeopardise the United Kingdom's interests abroad.
It could be argued that such a test could easily be passed if it was shown that, using the example of the right hon. Member for Worthing, a VAT communication had irritated another Government who were seeking to harmonise at a different level, or that there was some lining up of our Government's interest in the matter with the interest of another member country. The sanction of the criminal law should not be invoked in that case.
Although I have not, in the time available to me, been able to draft the amendment in precisely the appropriate way, I am sure that the Minister would not rest on that because the Government's resources for drafting are much greater than those available to individual hon. Members. However, I hope the Minister will accept the principle that it is undesirable and unacceptable to provide for a new criminal offence of disclosure of something so minor as a proposed change in the rate of VAT.
Through the use of the concept of "international relations" the Government have enormously widened the Bill's ambit. Many of the Home Secretary's claims that this is a liberalising Bill are set at naught by the Government's refusal to exclude the provision relating to international relations. So much of what is primarily domestic material is the subject of international discussion. There is scarcely any matter of public policy which, does not come before some institution of the European Community for consideration. The very fact that the matter has been communicated from part of a process abroad will be sufficient to bring into play the criminal law in a wholly unacceptable way. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I will follow my notes closely because we are being hurried through these matters.
I support amendment No. 10, which I believe represents the views of the House. It limits the definition or "international relations" as it applies to clause 6 in relation to disclosures taking place overseas of information supplied by the British Government.
The subject was discussed on 16 February under an amendment which would have omitted information about international relations from the scope of clause 6. This amendment proposes a different solution to that problem by limiting the definition of "international relations".
The amendment attempts to exclude from clause 6 information which, in the normal sense, is not about international relations at all but is primarily about Britain's domestic affairs—information that we pass on to another Government or international body, perhaps because discussions about harmonisation or common standards are taking place. We might pass on information about consumer protection measures in Britain, pollution, VAT, the harmonisation of summer time, the labelling of food products, or measures to encourage motorists to use lead-free petrol. The list is endless.
On 16 February my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) made the point that if we pass such information on to an international body or to another Government, and if it forms part of our discussions with that body or Government, it is, technically, transformed into information about "international relations". We therefore have the bizarre situation in which it might be an offence to publish information about Britain that had been leaked overseas, though if that information had been leaked in this country it could have been published without giving rise to an offence. The problem is caused by the all-embracing definition of "international relations" used in clause 3(5). This makes it clear that information of any kind, on any subject, is covered if it is
capable of affecting the relations of the United Kingdom with another State or with an international organisation.
Any information that we pass on and discuss with another Government must be capable of affecting our relations with that Government—perhaps with others, too.
The harm test mentioned in clause 3(2) would have to be met, but, as previous debates have made clear, this test is extremely weak—a disclosure likely to "jeopardise" United Kingdom interests abroad meets it. For example, Britain and another EC country might be having private discussions aimed at obtaining derogation from an EC directive on water pollution standards. We might pass on unpublished information about pollution levels in Britain and about the cost of meeting the standard. The fact that Britain appeared to be secretly discussing ways of avoiding meeting an EC standard that was being met by other European countries could well affect our relations with some of those countries. The information would therefore fall within the definition of "international relations".
This amendment, which relates to clause 6(4), seeks to avoid that situation. It says that, for the purposes of clause 6, the definition of "international relations" in clause 3(5)
shall not include any information relating primarily to the domestic affairs of the United Kingdom
if the disclosure of that information in this country would not be an offence under clause 1, which deals with security, clause 2, which deals with defence, or clause 4, which deals with law enforcement.
If the information related to sensitive Foreign Office negotiations its disclosure overseas would still be an offence under clause 6, but leaks of other information, primarily about Britain's domestic matters, would not be caught by the international relations definition simply because we had passed the information overseas.
I think that the argument is a formidable one, and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would accept it.

Mr. Foot: This debate is a further illustration of how objectionable it is that the House of Commons should be considering a Bill of this nature under the restrictions that have been imposed on it. We are now approaching the parts of the Bill—indeed, we have reached them—in respect of which the truncation started at the Committee stage, when debate was curtailed by the falling of the guillotine. Now we are being denied a proper chance to judge what consideration the Goverment have given to these amendments, as happened in the case of the amendments that were moved during the Committee stage.
As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, there is not the slightest doubt that the use of the words "international relations" greatly enlarges the ambit of the Bill in various ways. Never has a Bill dealing with subjects of this kind included provisions of this kind. It is, therefore, all the more necessary that the Government should be careful to ensure that the House of Commons has a chance to satisfy itself that the references to international relations would be properly applied, and would not be invoked in a way in which the Government may claim they do not wish to see them invoked. But we have not had that chance. The Government are leaving the several references to "international relations" without any qualification, and that is one of the Bill's many flaws.
Let me refer to clauses 6, 7, and 8. At the Committee stage we had quite a sensible debate with the Home Secretary about how a new amendment might be formulated to deal with the question of premature disclosure—a balance that could cover the view of the Government and the view being put forward by the Opposition. It seems to me that those clauses, though they would affect international relations, have not been considered by the Government. I am not saying that the Home Secretary gave an absolute promise that he would consider accepting an amendment, but we did have a sensible debate in which we said that there surely ought to be a way of dealing with the situation, particularly in the light of terrorism.
I fully acknowledge the problems that the Home Secretary and the Government have in respect of acts of terrorism, and so on. Of course, these create a whole new dimension of horror. I do not have the slightest doubt that the worst problems the Home Secretary has to deal with every morning when he comes to his office are those concerned with terrorism in its new forms. But all the more necessary is it that the Government look at this question and see whether we could have an amendment that would take into account all the anxieties that have been expressed on the Labour side of the House and by Tory Members, and still give protection.
We could have had an amendment giving some protection to newspapers. That is what I am concerned about. I fully acknowledge my interest in newspapers, although I am no longer an editor. Indeed, I have not been offered an editorship for quite a considerable number of years, such is the decline in standards in Fleet street. However, this Bill introduces a whole range of new offences that have to be dealt with by newspaper editors, under the provision concerning international relations. So far as editors and other journalists are concerned, this is fresh legislation. During the Committee stage the Minister told me that he had had discussions with editors and others on these questions. I know that there were some discussions, but the Minister could not answer my question then, and I do not think that he can answer it now.
None of these clauses provides properly for consultation with editors or the others who work in this industry. There has been a very startling and dramatic outrage on the part of the judges in the last few days. When the Government do not consult the judges and the Law Lords, they are told—quite properly—that they are not discharging their functions properly. I bet that the judges would have a good deal more chance of consultation about the supposed reforms to be introduced in their case than the journalists will have in theirs. What is being forced on


the journalists is a new measure dealing with questions involving criminal offences. It involves what they can print. It involves a whole range of questions—in particular, as this clause discusses, how they are able to report a whole range of matters affecting international relations. What we should have had is a detailed list of amendments on all the clauses including clauses 6, 7 and 8. All of them should have been opened to proper amendment, and then we might have had a Bill that showed that the Government were really approaching the matter seriously.
I hope that the Government will listen to what is being said and that they will accept this amendment. It might not make the Bill very much better, but it would be a small sign that the Government are listening to what the House of Commons is saying.

Mr. Hind: I am glad that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has decided to exclude from his amendment information relating to security, defence and crime—matters that are dealt with in clauses 1. 2 and 4. The House is being asked to consider the narrow issue of information connected with international relations which does not come under those headings. We should view the matter from the point of view of damage that could be done to the national interest if that information were disclosed. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that if information connected with the British Government's position on negotiations about VAT harmonisation were revealed by way of document or discussion, that should not attract the full force of the criminal law. I urge him to reconsider because real problems can be created for Government, particularly in negotiations of that kind, by the disclosure of such information.

8 pm

Mr. Maclennan: I do not wish to take up time because this is a ridiculously short debate. The point is that under the Bill it is not an offence to reveal such information in this country—to reveal it abroad. Presumably, the embarrassment will be the same whether the information is revealed abroad or at home.

Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman quoted the example of VAT harmonisation negotiations with other EC member states, which is a matter connected with international relations. Under the provisions of the Bill, the courts would take that view. It would therefore be regarded as an offence within the context of disclosure in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman is trying to impose far too narrow a definition. He is trying to create something in a grey area of the law that is not capable of definition. The beauty of the Bill is that it is clearer about this. If information connected with international relations, as VAT would be, is disclosed, that could undermine negotiations in the Council of Ministers. That would cause positive harm to the British public and would undermine the national interest. Therefore, it should attract the full force of the law.
I think that the public will agree that information on matters as emotional as the British Government's decision on VAT on food and children's clothes, or trade negotiations with other countries, which may be highly

sensitive, should be included in the provisions of the Bill because positive damage can be caused to the national interest.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: How will we tell whether information has been leaked from this country so it will not be caught by the Bill, if enacted, or from elsewhere and so will be caught by the Bill?

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend is correct. Nobody would consider bringing a prosecution unless there was fairly strong evidence that the information was leaked by a Crown servant or somebody caught by the Bil11 in this country.

Mr. Higgins: They would not be caught under the Bill.

Mr. Hind: As I understand, my right hon. Friend is asking how we can determine whether the information has been leaked by somebody in another country or by somebody here. If the information is leaked by the foreign power, that is a different matter.

Mr. Higgins: We shall not be able to tell.

Mr. Hind: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland also referred to information being leaked during negotiations. If a civil servant involved in the negotiations, knowing that a document has been passed over to a foreign power in the negotiations, decides to disclose that information, that is a different situation. The foreign power has the information, and the test of harm does not apply because it can be argued that no harm would arise, so no prosecution will be brought in such circumstances. The Attorney-General would examine the circumstances, but no prosecution would be brought.
What the hon. Gentleman is trying to put into the Bill is too unclear. The Bill is much clearer. The harm test will apply in all circumstances. In our attempts to introduce exceptions to the rule and to cover this or that corner we forget that the harm test, which is so beautifully simplistic, protects the national interest and covers many of the points that have been made.
It is not necessary to put the amendment into the Bill, so that the hon. Gentleman can confidently withdraw it.

Mr. Alistair Darling: This is a ridiculously short debate in which to discuss a provision that will shroud much of our lives in secrecy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on his valiant defence of the Government. When the Bill has received its Third Reading he should get a prize for being the only Tory Back Bencher to support the Government regularly.
It is frightening that so much of the information relating to potential EEC legislation would be struck out under the Bill's provisions by the wide drawing of the clause. Much of the prospective legislation that affects the lives of our people is discussed at ministerial level or between Government officials or organisations of Governments. For example, three countries in the Shengen group are discussing the single European market and the movement of people in advance of 1992. If I am told, and I reveal, that the Government are supplying information to those countries, that would be an offence under this provision, because it might be damaging and might damage the United Kingdom's interests abroad. Those countries might take great exception if what they were discussing was known either here or in continental Europe.
However, those discussions might be of great interest to our people. The clause will keep our people in the dark about what is being discussed at ministerial and Government organisation level. At a time when more and more decisions are being taken in the EEC, we should know what is being said on our behalf, and know what legislation is being considered. If the clause becomes law, we shall not have that option if the information is revealed by way of leak.
The clause affects more than international treaties. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, if information on harmonisation proposals on VAT or water pollution or other matters of great importance is revealed and reported through leaks, it will be struck at by the legislation. The Minister might reflect on the fact that if he proposed a similar provision striking at the revealing of information in the normal course of day-to-day discussions in this country, never mind international relations, people would regard that as unjustified and objectionable. Because the clause covers international relations and because the definition of international relations is so widely drawn, many of the negotiations on matters that will affect the way in which we conduct our lives and move about will be covered by the clause. If it is revealed to an individual, we in this country are not entitled to know about it.

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. Darling: I do not have time to give way, because the Minister must be given time to reply.
If the Minister says that the clause is badly drafted or needs tighter definition, I am sure that the Government could so arrange things when the Bill goes to the other place or comes back here. The definition of international relations is so widely drawn that it will strike at just about everything, and that cannot be good for discussion in this country. I trust that the Minister will come up with something better than a criticism of the drafting of the amendment. He must accept that, as drafted, clause 6 is far too wide and is thoroughly objectionable.

Mr. Higgins: My remarks will be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has clearly spelt out the case. Matters were confused at the end of the Committee stage. I cannot believe that the Minister will manage to resolve them in the five minutes that remain before we must reach a decision on the matter. In that case, it is debatable whether hon. Members should waste time on a Division when there are other important matters to be discussed. Be that as it may, the House of Lords must sort out a matter which this House should have had time to deal with.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The position is perfectly clear. I will return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in a moment.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on the way in which he moved the amendment, though I disagree with it in principle and also because of the effects that it would have. It is important that we realise that the effect of the amendment would not have much logic. First, it would be an offence to disclose international relations information

which has never left this country, because such disclosure could be proved to jeopardise our interests abroad in one or other of the harm tests in clause 3(2).
The other effect would be that, if the same information were entrusted to another state or to an international organisation and was leaked and then disclosed by exactly the same period in the same circumstances with exactly the same effect, it would not be an offence. There is no logic to the way in which the amendment would apply.
As I told the House at the end of the previous debate, clause 6 does not extend the categories of the information protected by the Bill. It extends the protection to the three categories that are specified when that information is entrusted in confidence to another state or to an international organisation and is then leaked abroad by a foreign national. All that clause 6 does is to extend the protection to information already protected in this country by clauses 1 to 3 when it is thereafter sent abroad and disclosed.
Before my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing came into the Chamber, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to what he had said in Committee. What makes the information relate to international relations in the case of VAT or water pollution is not the circumstances of the disclosure or where it is sent, but the nature of the information itself. The information has precisely the same definition in all the offences in the Bill which relate to international relations, and it is in clause 3(5). I do not accept the criticisms of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) about the drafting of clause 3(5).
If some official information is produced in this country relating to international relations—say because it relates to relations between states or international organisations—of course it could be covered by the Bill, but only if the unauthorised disclosure met the harm test to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) referred, relating to international organisations in clause 3, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) rightly referred.
The point I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing on 16 February was simply that, if the information in this country does not meet the language of clause 3(5), which we have debated before—say it is a statement of our VAT charges or information about water pollution levels—it cannot simply meet the language of clause 3(5) by being sent off to another state or to an international organisation. If it does meet the language of—

It being quarter past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the Resolutions this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 309.

Division No. 112]
[8.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beckett, Margaret


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Beith, A. J.


Aitken, Jonathan
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Alton, David
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald
Bidwell, Sydney


Armstrong, Hilary
Blair, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Keith


Baldry, Tony
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Battle, John
Buchan, Norman






Buckley, George J.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Loyden, Eddie


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McAllion, John


Cartwright, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, lan


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clay, Bob
McFall, John


Clelland, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Harry
McLeish, Henry


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Maclennan, Robert


Corbett, Robin
McNamara, Kevin


Corbyn, Jeremy
McTaggart, Bob


Cryer, Bob
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Darling, Alistair
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marek, Dr John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dixon, Don
Martlew, Eric


Doran, Frank
Maxton, John


Douglas, Dick
Meacher, Michael


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michael, Alun


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Eastham, Ken
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fatchett, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Faulds, Andrew
Morley, Elliott


Fearn, Ronald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mullin, Chris


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Murphy, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flannery, Martin
O'Brien, William


Flynn, Paul
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Parry, Robert


Foster, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Foulkes, George
Pendry, Tom


Fraser, John
Pike, Peter L.


Fyfe, Maria
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galbraith, Sam
Primarolo, Dawn


Galloway, George
Quin, Ms Joyce


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Radice, Giles


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Randall, Stuart


Golding, Mrs Llin
Redmond, Martin


Gordon, Mildred
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Gould, Bryan
Richardson, Jo


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rooker, Jeff


Grocott, Bruce
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hardy, Peter
Salmond, Alex


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sedgemore, Brian


Haynes, Frank
Sheerman, Barry


Heffer, Eric S.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Henderson, Doug
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hinchliffe, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Short, Clare


Holland, Stuart
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hood, Jimmy
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Soley, Clive


Howells, Geraint
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Steinberg, Gerry


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Illsley, Eric
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ingram, Adam
Turner, Dennis


Janner, Greville
Vaz, Keith


Johnston, Sir Russell
Wall, Pat


Kennedy, Charles
Wallace, James


Lambie, David
Walley, Joan


Lamond, James
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Leadbitter, Ted
Wareing, Robert N.


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Litherland, Robert
Wilson, Brian


Livsey, Richard
Winnick, David





Wise, Mrs Audrey



Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Martyn Jones and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Frank Cook.




NOES



Adley, Robert
Eggar, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Amos, Alan
Fallon, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)


Ashby, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Atkinson, David
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Sir Marcus


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Franks, Cecil


Beggs, Roy
Freeman, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
French, Douglas


Bendall, Vivian
Gale, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Benyon, W.
Gill, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorst, John


Boswell, Tim
Gow, lan


Bottomley, Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Green way, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gregory, Conal


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hannam, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, Jerry


Butcher, John
Hayward, Robert


Butler, Chris
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Heddle, John


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James


Carttiss, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Cash, William
Holt, Richard


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hordern, Sir Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howard, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dforcl)


Churchill, Mr
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irvine, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Irving, Charles


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jackson, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Janman, Tim


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, James






King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Raffan, Keith


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knapman, Roger
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Redwood, John


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Renton, Tim


Knowles, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Knox, David
Riddick, Graham


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lang, lan
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Latham, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawrence, lvan
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rost, Peter


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rowe, Andrew


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lilley, Peter
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Sir lan (Havant)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lord, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


McCrindle, Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Madel, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Speller, Tony


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin


Marlow, Tony
Stanbrook, lvor


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon lan (Herts N)


Mellor, David
Stokes, Sir John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Miller, Sir Hal
Sumberg, David


Mills, lain
Summerson, Hugo


Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, lan (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thorne, Neil


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Trippier, David


Mudd, David
Trotter, Neville


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr lan


Needham, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Ward, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Wheeler, John


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Pawsey, James
Wilkinson, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilshire, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Portillo, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, William (Corby)
Wood, Timothy


Price, Sir David
Woodcock, Mike





Yeo, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

`(1) A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information, document or article relating to the personal affairs of an identifiable individual which has been supplied in accordance with any requirement to do so imposed by or by virtue of any statutory provision or so supplied in connection with an application under a statutory provision for the grant of any benefit, approval or other permission, or which is held by any police authority, and which is held on terms requiring, or in circumstances in which it would be reasonable to expect, it to be held in confidence.

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the disclosure was required in order to prevent serious injury to the health, safety or welfare of any person or a serious risk to public health.

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article in question was such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.'.—[Mr. Richard Shepherd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Again, I shall go as quickly as I can through new clause 3. The clause proposes to add a new category of information—personal information about individuals—to those protected under the Bill. At present, the one area in which section 2 of the 1911 Act is still being used, and where its use is least controversial, is to deal with improper disclosures of personal information.
Earlier this month, two police officers and five private investigators were convicted under section 2 for conspiring to obtain information from the police national computer about criminal convictions and car owners. In 1986, a clerk at the DHSS was convicted under section 2 for revealing to a rival councillor details of social security claims made by the husband of a local councillor. Such information would no longer be covered by the new Official Secrets Act. The only police information that would be covered would be information whose disclosure would impede law enforcement.
Disclosures may still be offences under other statutes. If the information is held on computer, unauthorised disclosure by an individual may be an offence under section 5(3) of the Data Protection Act 1984. If the information is held on paper files, however, it is not covered by that Act. There are other prohibitions in individual statutes on the disclosure of certain types of personal information, but it is not clear how comprehensive they are. I recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State actually said that one of the things that the Department would be doing would be to review the existing legislation to ascertain whether there are omissions. We have not had the Minister's view on that yet. It may, of course, turn out to be the case that some types of information covered by the amendment are already adequately protected by other statutory provisions


and that the amendment is therefore not required, but I have some doubt about that in respect of the national police computer.
The new clause recognises that the protection of personal privacy is an extremely high priority for the public and should be recognised by legislation. The amendment would cover the following types of personal information held in confidence about an identifiable individual. First, it would cover information that an individual is required to supply by statute. That would, for example, include income declared to the Inland Revenue—I should like to hear my hon. Friend the Minister's view on whether that is protected by existing legislation—census information or car ownership details. Secondly, it would cover information supplied in connection with an application for a statutory benefit or permit, such as social security or legal aid. Thirdly, it would cover information held by the police. The new clause refers to information held by a "police authority", but perhaps it should have referred to a "police force".
Subsection (2) of the new clause provides a defence for an unauthorised disclosure if
the disclosure was required in order to prevent serious injury to the health, safety or welfare of any person or a serious risk to public health.
That principle is incorporated in the Prevention of Pollution Act 1974. Such disclosure might arise in an emergency when, for example, someone was carrying a highly dangerous infectious disease such as smallpox. A need for an exception of this nature is also recognised in the Data Protection Act 1984. Section 34(8) of that Act allows disclosure which otherwise would be an offence where it is
urgently required for preventing injury or other damage to the health of any person or persons".

Mr. Corbett: I shall make a brief contribution to the debate because the conviction of a clerk at the DSS, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), happened in my constituency. I do not want to cause any trouble by saying that the councillor involved was a Liberal, but whatever else he did, he should not have asked for that information.

Mr. John Patten: Name him.

Mr. Corbett: He is no longer a councillor, so it does not matter.
When the Minister replies, he may well assure the House that the restrictions on the passing of information that citizens have to provide on a statutory basis, such as information to the taxman, the DSS, or whatever, are protected by other legislation. If that is so, we shall be able to dispose of this debate fairly rapidly.

Mr. John Patten: During the course of my speech I hope that I will be able to bring a smile to the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).

Ms. Diane Abbott: I doubt it.

Mr. Patten: Wait and see.
We explained in the White Paper—a document long since forgotten in our debates—why we did not consider it right to give blanket protection to information provided by individuals. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of

the arguments that were adduced in the White Paper. I am sure that it is better for Parliament to look at particular kinds of such information individually and decide whether it is right to give it the protection of the criminal law. I shall develop that argument and then make some announcements to the House.
The elements of the offence, and of any relevant defences, need to be considered in the context of the purposes for which the information is supplied in the first place and the circumstances in which it, quite properly, might be disclosed. The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend also outlines the circumstances under which information should be properly disclosed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills suspected—it was also implicit in the contribution by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett)—there are already a number of individual offences that protect information provided Ito Government under statutory requirement or for some other purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills mentioned census information, which is already protected by the Census Act 1920. There are other examples that might interest my hon. Friend. Section 74 of the Airports Act 1986 makes it an offence, subject to certain exceptions, to disclose information obtained from airport operators by, amongst others, the Civil Aviation Authority. We have had a brief discussion of value added tax during the previous debate and section 44 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 makes it an offence to disclose information obtained by the business statistics office of the Department of Trade and Industry for the business register or any other statistical survey other than to a Government official who needs it for that purpose. In practice, where prosecutions are brought for the disclosure of the categories of personal information referred to by my hon. Friend, they are normally brought under those specific offences. It is extremely rare that such offences are brought under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
My hon. Friend's new clause would bring back the blanket protection in a manner that would not be consistent with our proposals. As we said in the White Paper, in general the civil remedies available to those who provide the information and the disciplinary procedures that penalise disclosure by a Crown servant provide sufficient protection for private information.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Patten: I shall develop this argument before I give way to my hon. Friend.
In the White Paper we acknowledged that there are circumstances where, as the Franks committee argued, it is in the public interest that private information should be given the protection of the criminal law. I do not believe that anyone would dissent from the view that in certain circumstances such information should be given the protection of the criminal law.

Mr. Bermingham: indicated assent.

Mr. Patten: I am glad that I have the assent of the hon. Gentleman. We see no reason why all such information should automatically be given that protection. Generally we believe that Parliament should have a selective attitude when considering the nature of the information that may be provided and the harm likely to arise from its disclosure.
The new clause contains no test of harm. It protects every piece of information that is provided in the broad circumstances covered by the clause. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that a person who provides information about himself or herself to a public official has the right to expect that that information should be kept in confidence. In the White Paper we undertook that we would consider whether the repeal of section 2 left without the protection of the criminal law any information provided to the Government in confidence which needs such protection. Tonight I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to continue to provide such protection for those who give private information about themselves and their businesses in confidence to the Inland Revenue and to Customs and Excise.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does that mean that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will propose new legislation to the House? What legislation protects the national police computer?

Mr. Patten: The protection given to those who provide information to the Inland Revenue and to Customs and Excise will be a continuation of previous practice, but it must be hallowed in legislation in this place—

Mr. Shepherd: Will it be a criminal offence?

Mr. Patten: It will be a criminal offence.

Mr. Shepherd: So it is new legislation?

Mr. Patten: It will mean the continuation of previous practice. The offence will apply to personal information only about taxpayers, including companies. It will not protect information about tax policy or about prospective tax changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked whether the repeal of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 would leave personal information on the police national computer without the protection of the criminal law. I can give my hon. Friend some reassurance as personal information held on that computer is covered by the Data Protection Act 1984. It would be an offence for those responsible for the operation of the police national computer wrongly to disclose such personal information. Equally, I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security proposes to make provisions in relation to private information provided to his Department, similar to those to be made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Social Security Bill which is currently before the House. I hope that the House will welcome those proposals by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security. However, I must not pre-empt those debates as the House will have the opportunity to discuss those matters.

Mr. Corbett: What about the guillotine?

Mr. Patten: That is not a matter for me—that is a traditional answer to the traditional question, although it was asked from a sedentary position. The House will have the opportunity to consider those details in Committee, when they are published in relevant Bills.
At present, we have not yet identified other categories of personal information which would not be protected other than by official secrets legislation, and which merits the protection of the criminal law. That can be considered in the context of any relevant legislation which is brought before the House.
The new clause goes wider than we believe is needed at present to ensure the protection of personal information. We agree that such information should be protected, but, if my hon. Friend presses his new clause, we do not agree that all such information needs to be protected by the criminal law under all circumstances all the time, nor that such protection should be given by official secrets legislation. That is probably the wrong route and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will consider withdrawing his new clause.

Mr. Bermingham: It is interesting to hear the Minister announce new legislation. However, like the money changer, he comes with almost empty hands and high interest rates.
The Minister has really missed the point. Of course some categories of information need to be protected, and once again the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has highlighted them. He mentioned the police national computer and the problems that can arise when that information is made available to other people, for legal or illegal purposes. We know from experience that information in the possession of the Inland Revenue is not always safe, and that information passed to the Department of Social Security about legal aid applications and other matters has leaked into the hands of third parties. Computers are not free from hackers and that information has a curious way of leaking out, often to the detriment of ordinary men and women.
We seek to ensure that such information is protected. If our society is worth having, if people want to go to the Inland Revenue and feel that it is their duty to disclose matters which involve companies and interlinking between companies, they need to know that the information that they provide will be safe. That occurred some years ago in the lump scandal in the building trade when an enormous amount of tax was defrauded. There are people within Government Departments involved in tax, social security and so on who for a quick £1 or £2 will disclose information. We need to know that those people can be prosecuted.
I become concerned when I hear the Minister say that the Government will cover any particular information in another Bill, such as the Social Security Bill. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) ask about a guillotine, but I shall leave aside that argument. We need the legislation to be in a composite form. If it is not, there is no guarantee that the legislation on each category of information will take the same form and that there will be the same certainty about that legislation. That is why I still have very grave reservations about the Bill as it stands.
Once again I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for moving new clause 3. It is not word perfect, but its spirit is right. I hope that if the hon. Gentleman does not push the new clause to a vote, the Government will take it away and examine it with care, and perhaps consideration will be given to statutory protection when the Bill passes to another place.

Mr. John Patten: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have demonstrated their good intentions through the two announcements I have made this evening about future legislation from the Treasury and from the Department of Social Security, particularly dealing with the income tax matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred?

Mr. Bermingham: I hear the Minister and I hope that the actions which will follow are as pure as his words. The Government are prepared to listen, and I am prepared to give them one more chance. However, the Government's track record on the Bill to date has been pretty awful and therefore I have little faith in the dulcet tones of the Minister. Let us hope that he proves me wrong for a change.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

SAFEGUARDING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 24, after 'such', insert
'and has disclosed without official authorisation'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 12, in page 8, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert
`and the person discloses it knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that it is such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above and is likely to be used without authority for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (b) above.'.

Mr. Corbett: The Minister has fair taken away the breath of the House with those two generous announcements, and I wonder whether I can tempt him to make it a hat trick. I want the Minister to understand that amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are not solely Opposition amendments and stand in the names of hon. Members from both sides of the House.
The clause is about disclosures which helped someone gain access to protected information. There is no harm test; the offence is disclosure where
it would be reasonable to expect
that lawfully held information might somehow be used by a person to whom it is passed to get at protected information.
Clause 8 applies to any information and is not limited to categories of information that are protected under the Bill. The legally held information need not have been leaked. It would apply to information which a civil servant disclosed with proper authorisation, or even to information published in an official report sold by HMSO. That is possible. If it is not possible the Minister will tell me. The Minister may well say that it is very unlikely, but I do not want to know that, as in paragraph 14 of the White Paper the Government's aim is that there should be no uncertainty as to whether people risked prosecution.
The nub of our objection is that the person who passes on the information which he or she legally holds commits an offence even if he or she has no reason to believe that the person receiving the information is likely to use it

improperly, so the holder of the information has to guess at the intentions of others. 1 accept that ultimately that would be a matter for the courts, but none the less the offence is too widely drawn and relies too much on guess-work about the intentions of another person.
I shall give the Minister and the House a couple of examples. It is not unknown for people to be walking by the side of canals or rivers or around the areas of rubbish dumps—it has been well reported—and to find batches of secret information. The good citizen in those circumstances would look at the documents and say, "What shall I do with these?". He may sweep them up and walk home with them. He is then faced with a range of choices. One option would be to phone the local police station. The citizen may say, "1 do not know the value of these papers or who they belong to because there is no clue." Such papers do not often say, "Home Office" or "John Patten's Office".
Let us assume that the documents have the word "Secret" stamped all over them. The citizen may think, "I know what, I'll phone ITN." He may not do that for any malevolent reason but simply because he thinks that that organisation would know what to do. He may believe that it would pick up the telephone and speak to the Minister of State's Office and say, "We have some documents. We think that they belong to you so please come and get them." That may not be done for malevolent reasons or for financial gain but purely to return the papers, which, clearly, should not be on the side of a canal, to the person responsible for them. Under the clause as drafted, if a good citizen passed such documents to ITN and ITN let the side down by saying, "Holy smoke, there's a real cracker here and we should do something about it."—let us assume that the D notice committee does not hear about it—the good citizen could be in trouble. He or she may have no idea of the intentions of the person to whom the documents were handed.
Somebody travelling on a train from the golden city of Birmingham to Euston may overhear a conversation between two people who seem to be members of the Security Service who are talking more loudly than they should about their work. That person may get bored with the conversation and go to buy a bacon sandwich—I think that British Rail has stopped making bacon sandwiches. He may say to the man in the buffet, "I heard two spooks talking about their work." Under the Bill as drafted, the mere fact that he said that means that he may have committed an offence and risk prosecution. Those are open-ended offences which should not be in the Bill. Our two amendments seek to narrow the offence.
The first amendment seeks to limit the offence to passing on information disclosed without official authority. Passing on information that has been officially published would not be an offence. That should be the Government's intention if they do not want to look even more stupid than they do now. The second amendment means that no offence would be committed unless the holder of the authorised information knows that it was held by a Crown servant, that it was disclosed without authority and that it is likely to be used to obtain access to protected information. The clause as drafted does not lay that test. The clause uses the words:
it would be reasonable to expect.
It does not say who would make the test of reasonableness or how it would he applied.
Perhaps the Minister would give examples of the specific problems that clause 8(6) is designed to guard against. If he cannot, the amendments should be accepted.

Mr. John Patten: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and his right hon. and hon. Friends who support the amendment are attempting to raise the threshold for the offence. He described accurately what he is trying to do and perhaps he will correct me if my understanding is wrong.
The two amendments apply the access offence in clause 8(6). Amendment No. 11 is a paving amendment for amendment No. 12 because it introduces a preliminary step in the offence requiring that the Crown servant or the Government contractor in whose possession the information was had disclosed that information without authority. That theme has run throughout all our debates. The intention is clear and I would not argue about the wording.
Amendment No. 12 requires the prosecution to say that the discloser knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the information had been disclosed by a Crown servant or a delinquent Government contractor without authority and that it was likely to be used to obtain unauthorised access to protected information.
The two amendments turn the test of use from one of expectation to one of knowledge. It would not be much use, if the Bill prohibited the disclosure of protected information, if a person could avoid responsibility by telling someone how to obtain information for themselves. That is what would happen. The hon. Gentleman's amendments would ensure that neither the discloser nor the recipient would be liable for any offence. Clause 8(6) closes that loophole and the amendments, to some extent, reopen it. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The objective of the offence is to prevent people obtaining unauthorised access to protected information.

Mr. Corbett: Yes.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman said, "Yes" and he has explained his intentions clearly. However, amendment No. 11 is misconceived.
What matters is the misuse of the official information, not whether it was originally disclosed without authority. Surely there are no circumstances in which a Crown servant would be authorised to disclose information that might provide unauthorised access to protected information.

Mr. Corbett: What about the rubbish dump scenario and accidental access?

Mr. Patten: Accidental access would undoubtedly be protected by the harm test. Accidental access could not be an offence because there would be no way of proving that the person wished to make available to someone else, with the intention of causing damage, information which he or she had stumbled upon on the edge of a rubbish dump. The hon. Gentleman is simply repeating the fruitless search for the honest whistleblower and is now replacing that motif with the honest stumbler over information on the edge of rubbish dumps. That example does not help the proper understanding of clause 8.
It is pretty far-fetched and imaginative in the extreme to suggest that the Government would publish information that would give access to protected material. That was another point that was implicit in what the hon. Member for Erdington said. What is really relevant to the offence is that the individual has reason to know that the information he discloses might be used to gain unauthorised access to protected information. That requirement is already in the Bill and it is reinforced by the need for the prosecution to show that, in the circumstances of the disclosure, it was reasonable to expect that it should have that effect. That seems to reflect more accurately the circumstances in which such offences might be committed.
Questions about official authorisation and whether the person disclosing the information had reason to believe that it had been officially authorised for disclosure only take attention away from the essential element of the offence itself, which is to prevent someone giving someone else the nod and wink about how to gain access to unauthorised information and to escape any penalty for so doing. I do not believe that any hon. Member believes that that would help to protect the official secrets of the realm, where they need protection. What matters is not official authorisation, which might or might not be relevant to the particular disclosure, but whether the person disclosing the information did so in circumstances in which he had reason to expect—which is the critical point—that it might be used to give access to protected information.

It being Nine o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the Resolutions this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

9 pm

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House has spent six days—all on the Floor of the House—on an important Bill of 16 clauses. I do not think that, in retrospect, that will be found niggardly. The two main issues of contention identified by critics of the Bill were, first. the absolute offence for members and former members of the intelligence and security services and, secondly, the principle of a public interest defence. Both issues were discussed at length and without restriction.
We have seen a devoted and articulate band of critics, from all parties, coming together against certain aspects of the Bill. Those critics have not, of course, opposed the proposal to free the great bulk of official information from the criminal law so that the great majority of civil servants will, if the Bill becomes law, hardly ever possess information that will come within its scope. That is a substantial change. The critics have not opposed the proposal that there should be harm tests in, for example, foreign affairs and defence which now, for the first time, will have to be surmounted before prosecution can succeed. They have not opposed the proposal that there should be no ministerial certificates and that the jury should decide.
What the critics have been doing is urging us to do more, to go further down the road, to make the hurdles higher and to introduce new forms of defence within the narrow area still to be protected. They have done that overwhelmingly because of the particular person whom they continually conjure up before us—the vision of the whistleblower, the conscientious civil servant who is asked to do something wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) gave perhaps the most vivid description of that person a few hours ago. Such a person can exist and it is right, wherever possible, that there should be safeguards and remedies open to him. But the House cannot be expected to build the whole structure of the law around that person. He is not the only pebble on the beach.
That is why the argument from the critics has been unbalanced. Yet that argument has dominated most of the debate. A balance must be struck because the information that we believe must be protected needs to be protected—not to save Ministers from embarrassment or to safeguard some vague concept of public interest, but to enable certain services of the Crown to protect the citizens of this country against certain specific evils, such as terrorism, crime and espionage. Where that has to be done, it should be done effectively.
In the areas defined by the Bill, information disclosed can cause serious damage—I use the word "serious" deliberately.

Mr. Corbett: What about "serious damage"?

Mr. Hurd: I am coming to that—as I have come to it so often. I used the word "serious" deliberately, knowing that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) would be spry in interjecting, because I believe in the narrowed categories of test as defined in the Bill. I believe that harm could be serious without the further need for qualifying it as such in the various harm tests in the Bill.
Perhaps because the critics' arguments have tended to be unbalanced, they have not made decisive headway. Nevertheless, they have strong assets. They have their own strong talents and the fact that many of them, as Privy Councillors, have under our rules rightly been prominent in debate. They have also had the support of a powerful section of the press, which has often emitted more smoke than light. Of course, the press has a perfectly legitimate interest in maximum disclosure, so no one should be surprised by that. Despite all those formidable assets, however, the critics have not been able to mobilise more than a certain level of support—[Interruption.] I hope that no one will try to tell me about the power of the Whips, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) did earlier when lie referred to the ignorant majority. I know the limits on the power of the Whips, having stood at the Dispatch Box and seen a Government measure come apart in my hands—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, this is it."]—despite all the power of the Whips to sustain it on Second Reading.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Shops Bill deserved to fall apart.

Mr. Hurd: I believe that my hon. Friend will agree with what I have been saying. If the whole House believes that the Government have got their basic judgments wrong about a measure, it will make that belief felt—especiallly when every word in the argument has been spoken on the Floor of the House, as has been the case with this Bill.

Mr. Budgen: Is not the problem that if a Bill is bashed through quickly there is not the opportunity for the House to respond to public opinion? In the case of the devolution measures that went through the House 10 years ago. public opinion in the end changed and, as it changed, it affected opinion in this House. By bashing the Bill through so unnecessarily, my right hon. Friend and the Government do not know what the people of this country believe about it.

Mr. Hurd: I must beg leave to differ with my hon. Friend. The process has seemed almost interminable. We had the White Paper, a debate on the White Paper arid then the Bill, with long processes of discussion and debate for many months, so "bashing through" is certainly not what has occurred. Time for the play of public opinion has been substantial. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills began the process with his private Member's Bill. There has been at least a year—indeed, more than a year—for the processes that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) describes to have their effect.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: rose—

Mr. Rooker: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) because he has been here throughout the debate.

Mr. Rooker: The real test of public opinion—this is where the Home Secretary will come to rue the day that he rushed the Bill through—was not the White Paper or the Bill. It will be the first trial, when the whole damned thing will blow up in his and the Government's face.

Mr. Hurd: I am content to wait for that day because one of the root elements of the Bill has been to transfer more power to the jury than was the case under previous proposals.

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I want to get on as I promised to take only 10 minutes.

Mr. Budgen: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) is his only friend in the House.

Mr. Hurd: I shall not say, like Mr. Neville Chamberlain, that I have my friends, because that usually ends in tears.

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. Hurd: No, before I close I shall return to the theme that has been behind almost the whole of the debate for more than a year. I refer to what I would describe as the myth of obsessive secrecy. There can be few critics of the Bill who have not used some such phrase.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) personalised that argument in debating the Bill last week by referring to my background. He was polite, as he almost always is, and he described me as a mandarin. As it happens, before I was a mandarin I was a son and grandson of Members of the House, both of whom spent many years as journalists, so my background is not wholly dissimilar from that of my hon. Friend, albeit less celebrated. I assure my hon. Friend that the main difference that has occurred since I started as a small mandarin in 1952 has been precisely the spread of information flowing out of Whitehall. That is the biggest single change under all Governments, and it is continuing. It is a particular change that I see in my present Department. The great increase in the workload of my Department is, in large part, due to the disclosure, publication, defence and explanation of information which was previously held tight. That is true in relation to prisons and immigration, and it is increasingly true of the police. I welcome it and I acknowledge that much of it has been extracted by the press and by the Select Committees and proceedings of this House. I repeat that I welcome that. I believe that the process has some way to go and that the Bill makes an important contribution to it.
This is a task that has baffled several Governments. It baffled the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who received the Franks report but had no time to do anything about it because of the 1974 election. My right hon. Friend would certainly have done something about it, but it is equally certain that what he would have done would have been on the basis of conclusive ministerial certificates. For five long years, it baffled the Labour Government of 1974–79, who left behind the White Paper, which again rested on conclusive ministerial certificates. It also baffled the present Government in their first year or two. Now we have a chance collectively to get it right and to get it through.
Far from making the Government the arbiter in these matters, the Bill reduces the present wide, vast role of the prosecuting authorities. It asks Parliament to define the harm and it asks the jury, without ministerial interference,

to conclude whether the harm has been done. I believe that, among the reforms introduced by the present Government, this is one of the most substantial and I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading.

Mr. Hattersley: I appreciate that the rules of order governing a Third Reading debate have put the Home Secretary at some disadvantage. Those rules require that speeches do not deal with matter that is not contained in the Bill. Yet since the Bill was published the Home Secretary's speeches have concentrated largely on material that does not appear in this legislation, usually pretending that it did.
The process of misrepresentation of the Bill's contents began when the Home Office handout, purporting to describe the Bill, referred to
specific tests of harm to the public interest".
As we have discovered after the limited debate that the Government have allowed, the phrase "public interest" does not appear in the Bill. Nor are any of its clauses built on the concept of public interest.
But the concept of harm does appear, and I shall spend the limited time that the guillotine allows me examining whether the concept of harm as it appears in the Bill enables the Home Secretary to claim with anything like plausibility that his proposals pass the central test of official secrets legislation.
That test can easily be defined. In a free society, official secrets legislation should protect information that, were it to become widely available, would jeopardise the security of the nation. It should not, however, embrace or include information that can be made public without damaging the national interest, whether or not the publication of that information embarrasses the Government of the day.
That is central to the principle on which much of the argument in Committee and on Report was based—an argument in which the Home Secretary has never chosen to join—which is the contention that the Government are not the nation, that the national interest is not necessarily synonymous with the Government's interest and that the courts, rather than the Government, should decide where the national interest lies.
Those principles are all essential to democracy. After all the time spent on discussion and debate, about which the Home Secretary spoke with such pride, we still have no idea whether the Government share the view I described, or whether the Home Secretary believes that he has introduced legislation that properly distinguishes between national and Government interest. He has by implication continually rejected all the principles advanced by hon. Members by his refusal even to contemplate a public interest defence for those accused of revealing official secrets. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to create the impression—at least outside the House—that the so-called harm test is in some way proof and demonstration of the Bill's moderation.
The claim that the Bill suppresses only information that, were it to be revealed, would jeopardise the national interest is built on that simple idea—a concept that the Home Secretary variously calls "serious damage", "serious injury", and "serious harm". None of those terms accurately describes anything that appears in the Bill. When attempts were made specifically to insert into the Bill the word "serious", to qualify harm, injury or damage, the Home Secretary always resisted. Tonight, in his most


recent and final speech—until the Lords improve the Bill—he told the House that the harm or damage must be serious, and was giggling when he remembered that, although that is what he told the House, "serious" is not a word that he will allow into the Bill.
The Home Secretary sought to bolster his arguments over the adjective "serious" with language that a more confident and scrupulous man would not employ. A recent example of the Home Secretary attempting to make words mean whatever he wished them to mean appeared in The Daily Telegraph last Saturday. I quote his words exactly:
Under the new Bill, prosecutions must, in most cases, prove to a jury that serious damage has been done, in terms defined by the Bill.
No doubt the parentheses "in most cases" and
in terms defined by the Bill
were intended as qualifications so extreme and substantial that the meaning of the sentence was, on analysis, quite different from that which the casual reader supposed. That is a pretty disreputable technique in itself. But even when that disreputable linguistic practice has been recognised as such, the Home Secretary's statement is wrong. The idea that the Bill prohibits only the publication of official information when serious harm is done, or is even likely to be done, does not stand up to a moment's examination.
All information covered by clause 1 is expressly excluded from all tests of harm. Any man or woman employed by the security services is required now and for ever to maintain absolute confidentiality about every aspect of their work, as are men and women notified by the Government that they are obliged to maintain lifelong confidentiality. For them, there is no test of harm. For them, there is no question of judging whether or not the information they revealed is damaging to the national interest—or is inconsequential, trivial or even meaningless.
Members of the security services and those associated with them are allowed to publish anything about their work only when the Government agree that they should do so. Nobody doubts why that rule applies. The Government want to be able to allow and promote books that are to their political advantage, and suppress books that are politically embarrassing. If there is a test for harm in that area, the test for publication is the test of whether harm will be done to the Government's political reputation.
There is a test of harm in other areas, but as to the Bill itself—and contrary to what the Home Secretary persistently says about it—no reasonable person could believe that the test of harm relates to serious harm and to serious harm alone. I take as my example clause 2(2)(a) where the concept of damage, which, rightly or wrongly, the Home Secretary equates with serious harm, is defined. A damaging disclosure is said to be any disclosure which prejudices the capability of, or any part of, the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks".
We learnt in Committee that that definition applies to all the armed forces' tasks, no matter how trivial or inconsequential, no matter whether or not they are even related to the national interest or could reasonably be defined as assisting the national interest or damaging it. The idea that the definition of harm, as specified in clause 2 and related to the armed forces, contains any serious protection for those who might inadvertently allow inconsequential or trivial information to appear in the public domain is nonsense.
I cannot believe that the Home Secretary, with his expensive education and all the prizes about which he

keeps telling profile writers, does not realise that what he claims to be in the Bill does not appear in it. I cannot believe that it is a genuine error. He must know that his claims for the Bill are substantially, materially and grossly different from what the Bill contains on analysis of its clauses.
I am reinforced in that belief by the Home Secretary's demeanour and performance. Throughout the debate he has avoided, rather than meet face on, the arguments of his critics. He has been an accessory to the guillotine and he has exploited it on every occasion to avoid giving serious answers to serious questions. In my 25 years in the House. where I have seen Governments of both persuasions anxious in adverse circumstances to slip legislation through with the minimum of debate, I have never seen a measure that was so opposed by some Government Back Benchers and so little supported by the rest. I have never seen a ministerial parliamentary private secretary running around attempting to get Government Back Benchers to read from the Home Secretary's notes and failing to persuade them to do so.
What I have seen throughout the debate that we are about to conclude has been a shabby performance by the Government; they knew that they could not win the arguments on their merits and, therefore, took refuge in every device that was open to them. I have no doubt that they will get their majority tonight, but it will be a shabby victory and the Government will pay for it in the long run.

Mr. Amery: When my right hon. Friend replied to the debate on new clause 1 he tried to draw a distinction between procedure and policy. I do not think that anyone who listened to him or who studies the matter can believe that there is such a difference. The assurances that I was given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State detailed how authorisation would be given Then my right hon. Friend said, yes, but the policy was different. It was the procedure on the one hand and the policy on the other. I do not think that we can seriously reconcile the two.
Where do we stand? We have a repudiation by my right hon. Friend of assurances given by my hon. Friend. Perhaps we should not be too surprised about that. If my right hon. Friend had come back to the Dispatch Box and reassured us that we could rely on the assurances given by my hon. Friend, he would have kicked away the whole basis on which the Peter Wrights, the Cavendishes and the other cases were based. There is a difficulty for the Government. If they kick away a pebble, they may bring down the whole arch on which the Government's policy is based. I do not see that the House should accept that view of the architecture on which our policy is to be determined.
I very much regret that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has gone so far in repudiating the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. What are we to do about this? We know perfectly well that the Bill must be accepted, but I regret that, because the future of our defence administration—which to some extent depends on the secret services—may be weakened.
I have been careful during these debates never to oppose what my right hon. Friend tries to do if I can help it. However, we must face up to the fact that the Trappist vow of lifelong confidentiality cannot work in a democratic society. Of course, it can work if the Trappist monk has made his vow to God, but who can say what


God will decide? I have great regard for my right hon. Friend, but I cannot regard him—or even the "Ayatollah" or higher responsibility to which he has to bow—as God. Therefore, I find the Bill difficult, perhaps impossible, to accept.
I have been a Member for a long time and I have quite often been a Cassandra, and nothing is more boring than saying "I told you so". Tonight I am trying to say, "I am telling you what is going to happen". If the Bill is passed as drafted there will be a number of cases—perhaps even during my right hon. Friend's tenure of office—that will discomfit him or the Government. I do not know whose memoirs it will be—perhaps those of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) who is not present or perhaps some quite insignificant man will write his memoirs or publish an account of what he has done—but it will be very difficult to proceed against him in court when he will be able to claim various reasons why he should have made his disclosures.
It is too late tonight to ask my right hon. Friend to disclaim what he has already laid down. All I would say is that from the beginning I have tried to help him by putting forward my suggestions, which were accepted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I tried to throw the Government a lifeline, but I recognise the difficulties that they would have faced if they had accepted it. Perhaps they have accepted it in part, and, when decisions are taken in court or elsewhere, perhaps some of what has been said in the House—and to which my hon. Friend the Minister agreed—will rub off; I hope so.
I have some experience of defence and foreign affairs, and I could not bring myself to vote against the Government on the entire Bill. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand that in the circumstances and after what I have been exposed to—double dealing? I would not want to call it that—I cannot support him tonight. On Second Reading I said that I would support the Government if they gave me the right assurances. They gave them, but then they took them back, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand that when I abstain tonight it will not be with any spirit of malevolence.

Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has played a role in this debate rather like Hamlet when confronted by Polonius. The right hon. Member seems to have said, "Methinks I see yon cloud in the shape of a camel." "Very like a camel," says Polonius. "Methinks it's like a whale," says the right hon. Member for Pavilion. "Very like a whale," says the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary will agree with anything to command the right hon. Gentleman's vote. Many of the Home Secretary's remarks have sounded as if they were made by Polonius. If he continues to play Polonius to the Claudius of this Government, he may find himself stabbed behind the arras.
The Home Secretary rather gave the game away when he opened the debate. In a throwaway line, he said that the press has a great interest and a natural interest in maximising the disclosure of information. Do we not all have that interest? Is that not why we subscribe to article 10 of the European convention on human rights which

guarantees our freedom of information? Is that not why Lord Goff of Chieveley in the "Spycatcher" case said in the House of Lords:
Although in the case of the private citizen there is a public interest that confidential information should as such be protected, in the case of Government secrets, the mere fact of confidentiality does not alone support such a conclusion because in a free society there is a continuing public interest that the workings of Government would be open to scrutiny and criticism"?
The truth is that the Home Secretary has tackled the problem which he says has been ducked by other Governments, not through any desire to widen the disclosure of information, but as a straight response to the disclosures of the "Spycatcher" case. He has acted in this way because of the "Spycatcher" case. He has rightly recognised that there are certain public interests in maintaining security. Those exceptions are set out in the article 10 provisions of the European convention. However, he has surrounded the exceptions with such definitions as to extend the scope far beyond what is necessary in the interests of the security of the state.
I know that I must be brief, so I will give only one example. The Home Secretary's definitions of international relations are so broad and all-encompassing that almost any matter considered by Government will fall foul of those exceptions because we discuss those matters in our daily dealings with the European Community. If those matters are considered in that forum or are leaked abroad, the full weight of the criminal law—two years' imprisonment—can befall the leaker.
The Home Secretary recognised the most serious point in his opening speech. His proposals prevent those who are conscious of iniquity in the public service from disclosing that information. The Bill makes it a crime to reveal crime. I do not see how that can stand. I hope that another place will reconsider that. The arguments have been deployed extensively in this place, but they were not answered extensively. We look to the Lords, including some of the Law Lords who sat on the "Spycatcher" case—such defenders of our free speech—to bring to the consideration of these matters an objectivity which the Home Secretary, wrapped up in the net of secrecy which the Government cast over all their doings, cannot.
If the Home Secretary is right, I cannot see why he finds it necessary so to misrepresent the provisions of the Bill as he has misrepresented them now. I need not repeat the quotations from The Daily Telegraph of Saturday. Those words merely compounded the Home Secretary's frequent misrepresentation of the nature, purpose and effect of this Bill. He has referred constantly to the serious-damage tests that must be applied before the sanction of the criminal law is invoked. He knows—we have debated the matter extensively—how to import that concept, which he says he embraces, into the Bill. We had the benefit of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who was on the Franks committee, reminding us—if we needed to be reminded—that that was the very nub of the test that Franks had applied as long ago as 1972.
We have failed to persuade the Home Secretary that those words should appear in the Bill. I hope that they will appear when it comes back from another place. At least they would cut down the all-embracing, all-encompassing impact of this widely drafted clamp-down on our freedom of speech.
This has been something of a charade on the part of the Home Secretary—the pretence that this is a liberalising


measure. As he has acknowledged, the provisions of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act have rarely been invoked; in fact, that part of the Act could almost be regarded as having fallen into desuetude. This new piece of legislation, if it goes through, will be used to try to bottle up information whose disclosure might be in the public interest—matters concerning, for example, the public safety, the public weal, matters that concern the Father of the House, to whose amendment the right hon. Gentleman gave no adequate answer.
This is a constitutional measure meriting more than six days' debate in this House. Cutting down our freedom of speech merits more than six days' consideration, and that is why the House has taken so badly the Home Secretary's pretence that it is a liberalising measure. It is nothing of the kind; it curtails our liberties, and it will do his reputation no good. I believe that it will be in vain because it is fundamentally opposed to the provisions of article 10 of the European convention. Certainly the view that was expressed in the "Spycatcher" case by more than one of their Lordships is an indication that if these issues come before the European Court this measure will be struck down as being inappropriate and quite out of conformity with our international commitments. Their Lordships have a heavy and important task. It should have fallen to this elected House to ensure that the task was completed. Alas, it is not so.

Mr. Tim Devlin: This will be a short speech, as time is limited. I voted against the Government's three-line Whip when my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) introduced his private Member's Bill. Since the introduction of this Bill I have supported it at every stage, and it may be helpful to my hon. Friends—those who are still not in agreement with the Bill—if I tell them why my mind is so made up.
Under the present law, the prosecution has only to prove that an unauthorised disclosure of information gained in the course of certain employment has taken place. Thus, for instance, a clerk working at the Department of Social Security office in Stockton-on-Tees commits an offence if he or she discloses the colour of the carpet in that office. All information, no matter how trivial, is classified, and the consequences of disclosure are a dire thing, a criminal offence.
For that reason, overhaul of the legislation was long overdue. My hon. Friend's Bill was a good attempt at reform. Without it, and without the rebellion that supported it, the Government might have been tempted to do as all Governments have done—found the balance of convenience in favour of doing nothing. We might pose to ourselves the question that Abraham Lincoln posed to Congress:
Must a Government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?
I believe not, and I believe that this Bill is evidence of that.
The Bill is a liberal measure and is to be welcomed for that reason. Under the Bill, a jury can convict only when it has been persuaded that a disclosure has caused specified harm or is likely to cause such harm. For that very reason, there is no need of an overriding defence of prior publication or public interest. If no harm is done, or the benefit outweighs the harm, the jury should not convict.
The Bill will effectively protect the nation's secrets while opening up a significant new province of information to the public. It is consistent with the principle of rolling back the frontiers of the state and curbing the power of the Executive, which so many Conservative Members hold to be clear and central planks of our policy. The final resolution in a matter of degree is always a difficult process. There are those who say that it should be more restrictive and those who say that it should be more liberal. A line has to be drawn somewhere and the provisions of the Bill explained to an uncomplicated and sceptical public. The Bill, if not perfect, is a good measure, and should therefore be supported.

Mr. Foot: Only an hon. Member who had attended so few of our debates over the past few days could have reached the conclusions reached by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). I prefer to refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). Those on the Government Front Bench looked uneasy under his questioning, not only because of the way in which he was led to vote for Second Reading but because of the questions that he is still posing, to which he has still got no answers. Even if those on the Government Front Bench and some of those on the Government Back Benches do not heed what the right hon. Gentleman said—credit belongs to those who do heed it—many will study what the right hon. Gentleman said. By the time the Bill gets to the other place, there may be an answer to his question.
The Home Secretary went over the history of attempts to deal with measures such as this. If I remember correctly, he said, "We have a chance collectively to get it right". He might have said that at the beginning of our debates, but he cannot seriously mean it at the end of them. I say that as one who has listened to pretty well every sentence uttered during the Bill's proceedings. Some of the debates have been curtailed in a manner that is an offence to the House of Commons. Many provisions have been pushed through in a manner that is utterly abhorrent, particularly when we are dealing with a Bill that carries such large implications for the future. By any comparison and by any reckoning, the way that the Bill has been pushed through is a disgrace to the House of Commons, to the Government, and to those in this place who have tolerated the passage of such matters through the House by such means.
Major questions have not been resolved, and the Home Secretary cannot pretend that they have been. For example, there are all the matters associated with the supposed claim of lifelong confidentiality, implied at the beginning of the Bill, about which the questions of the right hon. Member for Pavilion are so pertinent and about which many other questions have been asked. If the Bill had been law when Winston Churchill wrote his memoirs, they could not have been produced in anything like the form in which they were presented to the nation. If the Home Secretary has an answer to that point, which has been made so often, he should have given it to us.
The effects of the Bill deriving from this provision will alter the relationship between the Executive and Parliament, and affect our democracy and how information may be given to the British nation. All these points are touched on in the question posed by the right


hon. Member for Pavilion, to which he has had no answer. We have discussed premature disclosure. I hope that we have made some dent in the Home Secretary's certainty.
I fully acknowledge that this is a serious matter for the newspapers of this country. I thought that we were to get from the right hon. Gentleman an idea of how to get a compromise that will work. If he was serious in what he said at the end of his speech about wanting a collective settlement of the matter, that is one aspect in which he should have searched for it. Of course, if the Government had considered our debates and taken account of what hon. Members have said, we could have had a compromise between the demand of those who say that there should be no claim of premature disclosure and those who argue at the opposite extreme.
All responsible editors in Fleet street who have talked about these matters could have had a clause which protected the defence and rights of this country but which still protected, as far as we possibly can, the right to print information, to print the facts, and to print them in a way that must take account of what has been published before. Otherwise what would happen to the judgment in the "Spycatcher" case?
As the Home Secretary said, the "Spycatcher" conclusion was one reason for the Bill. Throughout our discussions, the Government have failed to meet the argument about the conclusions of the "Spycatcher" case and the reason the judges concluded that they must decide against the Government. They said that it would be madness and folly for them to say that it was wrong for newspapers to publish what had been published all over the world. The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that the conclusion of the "Spycatcher" case is that all that must be restored to the position that prevailed before. The Minister has accepted not the majority of judges but the minority of judges in that case.
After all our debates, that is a monstrous way for the House of Commons to deal with a serious matter. Like many hon. Members, I have much faith in the other place. This is one occasion when our counterparts can come to the rescue not of the Government—they are not worth saving—but of the country. I hope that our colleagues in another place will examine these matters in great detail. I hope that they will look at all the clauses that have been truncated in discussion here, take account of the way in which the Government have sought to deny full debate, and send back to the House a reputable Bill that can do what the Government have said that they want to do, which is to have a collective discussion in the House of Commons and the country about how we should deal with it.
The opportunity for a collective discussion has been forfeited by the guillotine, the form of the Bill, and the way in which the Prime Minister forced on the right hon. Gentleman the detailed clauses—the "Spycatcher" clauses—of the Bill. The combination of clause 1 and the other clauses dealing with disclosure mean that this is a much more ferociously anti-liberal Bill than the measures that prevailed before. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House of Commons, and that is what the other place should throw out.

Mr. Gorst: Among the central features of the Government's argument is that, to quote the words of the Minister of State in the press this morning, the Bill
vastly reduces the scope of the criminal law.
If that is the Government's view, it misses the point—either because it is tantamount to arguing that a change from bad to bad is better than no change at all, or that, having made a change, it must be a change for the better.
In truth, there has indeed been a change—a change both for the better and for the worse. Although the Bill vastly reduces the scope for successful prosecutions, it sows a whole range of new doubts as to what may or may not be published, thereby inhibiting without prohibiting. So instead of the draconian and obnoxious clarity of the previous Official Secrets Act, we shall have a new regime of uncertainty. That confusion and doubt will have the effect of suppressing publication of unquantifiable amounts of information which were previously entirely legitimate. A handful of daring editors may decide to publish and be damned, but for every courageous or reckless challenge there are likely to be a hundred—perhaps a thousand-timid and cautious decisions to spike the story and be spared.
Some people in Government circles may be happy to argue—even perhaps with a modicum of justification—that tighter security will flow from this legal form of stealthy deterrence, and that may well be so, but that is not the only consideration for Parliament. We have to weigh one unproven benefit against several evident disadvantages—disadvantages which are not obviously justified by commensurate gains. The Government have argued for drawing a line in the wrong place—they have erred in favour of stringency where freedom of expression is both defensible and essential. When Governments curtail the flow of information, they are tampering with the raw material of democracy. No democracy can survive in a vacuum of ignorance—for its survival it must feed on facts and information. Democratic electorates do not need just the good news—they must be able to censure the mediocre and the inefficient and to castigate the evil.
There is no dispute that some categories of information must not—perhaps may never—be revealed, but every attempt to restrict information requires close examination. The Bill has not been given the careful and sceptical scrutiny that is called for. Ministers may have been courteous and patient in their answers—there have, indeed, been plenty of answers—but time and again it has seemed that the argument between those who have taken the Government view and those who have thought differently was essentially about exactly where the line should properly be drawn. On the one hand, one has asked what constitutes a justifiable exposure of information. On the other, the question has been what should be a culpable and punishable revelation. To permit or to prohibit, that has been the question. Whether it is in the public interest to have the record straight, or, by so doing, harm it. For my part, I come down on the side of freedom of expression. I am against the imposition of a regime of stealthy suppression and I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Ms. Abbott: We have heard the Secretary of State in the Chamber and on the radio define the Bill as a great reforming measure. He has talked especially about how the Bill has limited and narrowed the scope of the existing legislation. Unlike the hon. Member for Southport—[HON. MEMBERS: "Stockton."]—the hon. Member for Stockton who, not having attended most of the Committee stage, came with his speech already drafted by the Whips, I want to say succinctly and in my own words that it will not do for the Secretary of State to boast that the Bill is a great reforming measure. In the first place, his boast that he has dropped the idea of ministerial certificates will not wash because, although the Bill contains no mention of ministerial certificates on information, by the notion of notified people, it introduces ministerial certificates on people. The notion of ministerial certificates on information has been exchanged for certificates on people.
It will not do to boast that the Bill is a reforming measure when it introduces the notion of lifelong confidentiality that Mr. Justice Lawson described as something which could not be achieved this side of the Iron Curtain. It will not do to boast that this Bill is a reforming measure because it narrows the number of offences covered since, under the 1911 Act, there were no fewer than 2,314 offences with which people could be charged. Therefore, it is hardly likely that the Bill would widen the scope of the 1911 Act.
The content and the manner in which the Bill has been forced through has revealed a Government careless of power. They will win tonight, but, as one of their hon. Friends has said, they will win by the exercise of an ignorant majority.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), made reference to the hon. Member for Stockton and I would like to make it clear that she was referring to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). Upon being referred to, that hon. Gentleman made a two-fingered gesture in her direction. I disassociate myself from that gesture, but associate myself with the remarks that my hon. Friend was justified in making.

Mr. Devlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that no such gesture was made—[Interruption.]

Mr. Cook: rose—

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that it is five minutes to 10 o'clock.

Mr. Buchan: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker. You know me of old, Mr. Speaker, and I also saw that gesture and was offended by it.

Mr. Devlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assure you and the House that no such gesture was made.

Mr. John Patten: rose—

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not see it and the hon. Gentleman said that he made no such gesture—

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot help the House. I cannot ask an hon. Member to withdraw something that I did not see myself and if he has denied having made such a gesture. Mr. John Patten

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall hear the point of order, but I warn the hon. Gentleman that it is now three minutes to 10 o'clock.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With your acceptance of his denial, Mr. Speaker, you are assuming—almost declaring—that some of us are lying. With respect, we are speaking the truth and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) should honourably withdraw the gesture that he made.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot be in a position of adjudicating on a matter when I did not see what happened. The hon. Gentleman has denied that he made that gesture and we must take his word for it.

Mr. John Patten: I am extremely sorry that the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) should seek to waste the time of the House. It is characteristic of his approach during our debates on the Bill.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) seems to have forgotten everything she was taught in the Home Office when she was a civil servant. She has forgotten the great width of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and has failed to understand the considerable narrowings of the law that my right hon. Friend's Bill introduces.
Of course, debates have been heated and detailed because the protection of official information inevitably raises extremely difficult questions of principle and practice. The debates in Committee, on Second Reading, on Report and on Third Reading have illustrated that.
It is not surprising, given such debates, that previous Governments have found it much easier to soldier on rather than attempt to grasp the nettle of legislation. We have made such a contribution in our traditional role as a radical and reforming Government. We have grasped the nettle and the Bill offers the answers. On such a contentious issue we certainly did not expect unanimity from all sides of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) criticised us for going too far in drawing up the Bill. We certainly expected to be assailed with general arguments and specific concerns. We have attempted to answer those concerns, but the Bill leaves the House in such a shape that it entirely deserves the support which it has received. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), to whom I rarely turn for a text, said in an earlier intervention that was meant to be unhelpful to the Government that the Bill would last for a generation. But it will last for considerably longer than a generation.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the Resolutions this day to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 195.

Division No. 113]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Alexander, Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Devlin, Tim


Amos, Alan
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dunn, Bob


Ashby, David
Eggar, Tim


Atkinson, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Fallon, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Favell, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Beggs, Roy
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bellingham, Henry
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Benyon, W.
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Sir Marcus


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Franks, Cecil


Body, Sir Richard
Freeman, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
French, Douglas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottom ley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brazier, Julian
Green way, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grist, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hanley, Jeremy


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, John


Butcher, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Cash, William
Hayward, Robert


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heddle, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chope, Christopher
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Colvin, Michael
Holt, Richard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Critchley, Julian
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)





Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hunter, Andrew
Norris, Steve


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Irvine, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Irving, Charles
Page, Richard


Jack, Michael
Paice, James


Jackson, Robert
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Janman, Tim
Patnick, Irvine


Jessel, Toby
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pawsey, James


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Porter, David (Waveney)


Key, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Kilfedder, James
Powell, William (Corby)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Price, Sir David


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Raffan, Keith


Kirkhope, Timothy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knapman, Roger
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Redwood, John


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Renton, Tim


Knowles, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Knox, David
Riddick, Graham


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Latham, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rost, Peter


Lightbown, David
Rowe, Andrew


Lilley, Peter
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lord, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Scott, Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maclean, David
Shersby, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Madel, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Major, Rt Hon John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maples, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Tony
Squire, Robin


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Miller, Sir Hal
Stokes, Sir John


Mills, Iain
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Miscampbell, Norman
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Thorne, Neil


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mudd, David
Tracey, Richard


Neale, Gerrard
Tredinnick, David


Needham, Richard
Trippier, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter






Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wilkinson, John


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wilshire, David


Walden, George
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Winterton, Nicholas


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Woodcock, Mike


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, Bowen
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wheeler, John



Whitney, Ray
Tellers for the Ayes:


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Tony Durant.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dewar, Donald


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dixon, Don


Aitken, Jonathan
Dobson, Frank


Alton, David
Doran, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Douglas, Dick


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Eadie, Alexander


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Eastham, Ken


Barron, Kevin
Fatchett, Derek


Battle, John
Faulds, Andrew


Beckett, Margaret
Fearn, Ronald


Beith, A. J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Bidwell, Sydney
Flannery, Martin


Blair, Tony
Flynn, Paul


Boateng, Paul
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fraser, John


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fyfe, Maria


Buchan, Norman
Galbraith, Sam


Buckley, George J.
Galloway, George


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cartwright, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gorst, John


Clay, Bob
Gould, Bryan


Clelland, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grocott, Bruce


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hardy, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cryer, Bob
Haynes, Frank


Cummings, John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Heffer, Eric S.


Darling, Alistair
Henderson, Doug


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hinchliffe, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)





Holland, Stuart
Parry, Robert


Home Robertson, John
Patchett, Terry


Hood, Jimmy
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter L.


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Geraint
Prescott, John


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Redmond, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Janner, Greville
Richardson, Jo


Johnston, Sir Russell
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Kennedy, Charles
Rooker, Jeff


Lambie, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lamond, James
Ruddock, Joan


Leadbitter, Ted
Salmond, Alex


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sedgemore, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Livsey, Richard
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Loyden, Eddie
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


McLeish, Henry
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maclennan, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


McTaggart, Bob
Strang, Gavin


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Turner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wall, Pat


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wallace, James


Martlew, Eric
Walley, Joan


Maxton, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Meacher, Michael
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Meale, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Michael, Alun
Winnick, David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Worthington, Tony


Morgan, Rhodri
Wray, Jimmy


Morley, Elliott
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and


O'Brien, William
Mr. Allen McKay.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

London Regional Transport

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move,
That the draft London Regional Transport (Levy) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
The Government take no pleasure in the increased levy for 1989–90. The increase is, in cash terms, nearly 50 per cent. above the current year's levy. I regret that this large increase is necessary, but necessary it is, for reasons that I shall explain. However, before doing so, I should like to set the proposed levy in its proper context.
Although the increase in cash terms over the current year is nearly 50 per cent. in real terms, next year's levy will still be nearly 30 per cent. less than the first levy in 1985–86 and only slightly larger than last year's levy.
London local authorities will not welcome the increased levy, but London cannot claim to have been hard done by. Next year's rate support grant settlement is generous to London, taking the authorities together. They will receive £175 million more grant, which represents an increase of 11·2 per cent. on the 1988–89 rate support grant. That will enable London local authorities to reduce rates by an average of 3 per cent. even after the LRT levy increase, if they spend in line with the proposed expenditure provision.
Some will doubtless argue that the increase should be borne by the Exchequer. I see no case for that. In increasing the levy in line with the increase in the grant requirement, we are maintaining the balance between the ratepayer and the taxpayer, which has existed since before LRT was set up in 1984. Just because the grant requirement has increased, there is no reason to expect taxpayers to bear a larger part of the burden. Ratepayers in London will benefit far more from the increased investment than the majority of taxpayers, who rarely use the system.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Portillo: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister agree that it is still the case that the proportion of the cost of London Regional Transport borne by the taxpayer is much less than the equivalent proportions borne by taxpayers in other capital cities such as Paris? Does he agree that we still ask ratepayers and travellers in London to pay a higher proportion than their equivalents pay in capital cities in other western European countries?

Mr. Portillo: There are a limited number of places from which the money can come. It can come from farepayers or from taxpayers, and in this country taxation is in two forms—local taxation and national taxation. I believe that the balance between those three is about right. In particular, the balance between taxpayers and ratepayers of approximately 33 per cent. and 66 per cent. is appropriate.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: While the Minister is on that point, does he accept that Londoners

are extremely badly treated in that the new investment on the rail, Tube and bus networks, to which he has referred, will be borne largely by the fare-paying passengers in London, whereas the huge amount of road building that he is planning for the capital will be borne by central Government expenditure and will benefit only the 18 per cent. of the travelling population who commute in and out of London by car, because the majority go by public transport for which they will have to pay increased fares to pay for improvements in the service?

Mr. Portillo: Most Londoners are big users of the roads even if a large number commute into central London by railway. The amount spent on roads is very much less than is collected in taxation from road users. Again, that is a perfectly defensible position.
Others may ask why the increased investment expenditure should not be funded by borrowing rather than through an increased grant and levy. The normal rule is that investment should be financed through borrowing rather than by grant only if the undertaking will be sufficiently profitable to enable both principal and interest to be repaid. Otherwise the industry would be saddled with an increasing burden of debt. London Regional Transport is not yet in a profit-making position. Debt financing would not, therefore, be appropriate.
I have said that I regret the need for an increase in the levy, but I have pleasure in reminding the House that the levy under discussion will be the last. To seek to continue some form of levy after the abolition of the current rating system would violate the principle of a uniform national non-domestic rate. To continue a levy on community chargepayers would produce an unjustifiable complication to the system, given that domestic ratepayers contribute only about one quarter of LRT's grant. The new needs assessment and needs grant system will take account of the fact that London local authorities will not be responsible for funding public transport in London. That will ensure that London community chargepayers are not unfairly advantaged compared with chargepayers elsewhere.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I can see an argument that the cost of the levy should fall on the users of the Underground through their fares, on taxpayers in general or on certain groups of ratepayers, but I cannot see the argument that ratepayers' contribution should be tied to the boundaries of Greater London. If my hon. Friend looks at a map of the London Underground, he will see that its centre of gravity is well to the north of the river Thames. Why should ratepayers in places such as Twickenham, Bromley, Beckenham, Croydon or Kingston, where there is no Underground, pay for it through their rates while people outside Greater London, such as those in Watford, Chesham or Amersham, where there is an Underground service, not pay anything for it through their rates?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the payment of taxation and the benefits derived therefrom rarely coincide exactly between the people who pay the taxes and those who derive the benefits. There are considerable benefits from LRT other than just the Underground system. There are bus services all over London, and last year an operating loss was made by London Buses Ltd. In general, the facilities of LRT contribute to the well-being of the capital as a whole and it is appropriate that ratepayers should make some


contribution. However, I readily agree with my hon. Friend that there should be a distribution between ratepayers, taxpayers and fare payers to achieve the fairest result.

Mr. Tony Banks: I would not disagree with the last point that the Minister made. We argue that London ratepayers are being asked to shoulder a disproportionate share of that burden. London should be treated differently. For example, there are the tourists who use LRT and, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) pointed out, all those from outside the Greater London area who use the transportation system in the London area. Why should London ratepayers have to subsidise all those other groups of people?

Mr. Portillo: I must be hearing things. I heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) say recently that there should be free transport in London. If he is now concerned about tourists and people from outside London, how will he recover the money from them if he wants a free transport system in London?
LRT is facing a number of major challenges. The need to respond quickly and effectively to the Fennell report is uppermost in all our minds, and Underground passengers are well aware of the widespread inconvenience caused by the need to get on with the work of replacement and renewal.
Coping with the massive and continuing growth in demand on the Underground must also be given a high priority, as must responding to the rapid pace of the development in the docklands. LRT is also restructuring London Buses Ltd into smaller companies able to compete with each other and to respond more flexibly to the needs of their customers.
Action is in hand on all those fronts. Next year, LRT plans to invest £441 million, of which about £280 million will be funded by the increased grant. The balance will be funded by LRT, including £71 million from property sales and developers' contributions of £61 million to the Docklands light railway.
LRT's response to the Fennell report on the King's Cross fire was published earlier this month. I believe that it represents a serious and responsible reaction to the tragedy. LRT has accepted the vast majority of the recommendations made by Mr. Fennell which apply to it, and many of them have already been implemented. The House will welcome that. The Government, for their part, have made it clear to LRT that the highest priority should be given to ensuring that the chances of a similar disaster occurring are reduced to the absolute minimum. To that end, we have made it plain that finance will not be a barrier to the implementation of the Fennell report.

Mr. Conal Gregory: In view of the Minister's comments about finance not standing in the way, may I ask him to explain why, since that time, automatic barriers have gone up at a large number of stations? Is he aware that these present a serious risk in the event of evacuation during a fire? Will he consider the possibility of open stations and much greater penalties if people do not carry tickets on the London Underground?

Mr. Portillo: Mr. Fennell made some comments about the Underground ticketing system. He said, for example, that the system should be reviewed by London Underground in conjunction with the railway inspectorate

and the London fire brigade. The railway inspectorate and the London fire brigade had already reviewed the Underground ticketing system and had approved it for installation, although subsequently—in November of last year—the London fire brigade made a number of detailed points which London Underground is now addressing.
In addition, and in the spirit of the Fennell report. I asked London Underground to appoint consultants to review the Underground ticketing system to make sure that no point had been missed, and those consultants are now at work because London Underground readily agreed to my suggestion.

Mr. Harry Cohen: How can the Minister explain the appointment of those consultants when, in answer to a question that I put to him recently, he said that another 118 automatic exit barriers are being installed? How can there be a genuine process of consultation if the barriers continue to be installed in any case?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. It is not a consultation process, but a review by consultants, to determine whether the system is safe and whether, by chance, London fire brigade or the railway inspectorate have overlooked anything. The Fennell report makes no recommendation that the installation of automatic exit barriers should be stopped. Mr. Fennell simply asked that that aspect should be reviewed by London fire brigade and the railway inspectorate. That has already been done. In addition, to comply with the spirit of the report, we have asked for the view of consultants.

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister will appreciate that there is a great deal of concern about Underground safety, particularly the new barriers. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), would it not be better to halt the installation programme until the consultants have reported? If the consultants recommend, as I believe that they might, that automatic barriers would be a hazard in the rapid evacuation of a station, increased costs will be avoided. There is much concern among the travelling public that, in the event of another disaster such as King's Cross, barriers would make it possible to evacuate a station quickly.

Mr. Portillo: I have nothing to add to my earlier remarks. Mr. Fennell did not recommend such a course of action. Both the fire brigade and the railway inspectorate have considered the barriers and approved them for installation. The appointment of the consultants is an extra layer of safety that has been applied at my request, and their report will be produced shortly. I see no reason to stop the installation of barriers in the meantime. We shall learn the consultants' views in due course.
In the current financial year, we have agreed to increase LRT's external finance limit by £54 million, half of which is to allow for additional spending on safety measures. Looking to the future, the public expenditure White Paper makes full provision for the increased safety spending sought by LRT—a total of £266 million over the next three years. Of that, some £80 million will need to be spent next year.
Coping with the massive and continuing growth in demand is the second major challenge facing the Underground. Since 1982, use of the Underground has increased by about 80 per cent, and it is still rising, which is putting the system under considerable strain. Action is


being taken both to provide short-term relief and to develop long-term solutions. Investment in the Underground is currently at record levels. Next year it will be even higher at £299 million, which is double the 1984–85 level in real terms. That includes substantial investment to relieve congestion as well as to renew and modernise the system.
However, there is even more that must be done. It was for this reason that we set up the central London rail study last March, with an urgent remit to develop a strategy to improve London's rail services and to provide for the forecast increase in demand to the end of the century. The report of the study was published in January. It proposes a major upgrading programme costing some £1·5 billion to make the best use of the existing Underground and Network SouthEast together with one of two alternative packages of two new lines in tunnels under London. I commend that report as a major contribution to the debate on how to improve London's rail services. The need for action in this area is urgent, and we intend to move forward as quickly as possible. We are currently seeking views on the report. At the same time, further work is being carried out in preparation for decisions on whether to go ahead later this year.
The new Docklands light railway has played a vital part in stimulating the development of the Isle of Dogs. It is currently being upgraded and extended to Bank. This will increase its capacity threefold. But the success of the docklands is such that additional rail capacity will almost certainly be needed to supplement the light railway. The east London rail study is currently looking at the options in parallel with the final phase of the central London rail study. Subject to the outcome of the study and the negotiation of satisfactory contributions from the developers involved, I hope that it will be possible this autumn to deposit a Bill seeking the necessary powers to build a new line.
LRT has taken significant steps to improve London's bus services, but there is a limit to what can be achieved whilst London Buses remains in a monolithic form. It is currently being restructured into 11 local companies. As they will be much smaller concerns, they will be closer to their customers and able to respond more flexibly to their needs. They will also be free to compete with each other. The result will be a better service for the customer and a smaller bill for the taxpayer.
I am sure that the House will agree that increased investment is required to improve London's public transport. But there is no such thing as a free ride, and the increased investment has to be paid for. Our guiding principle is that passengers should have the services they want and are prepared to pay for. However, although LRT will no longer require revenue support, it cannot finance the large investment programme required from its own resources. It cannot increase its income as quickly as investment needs to increase. This means that the grant and the levy must rise. I cannot expect any increase to be popular, but, as a London Member myself, I feel strongly that Londoners are very aware of the need for new investment and, indeed, would believe us to be negligent if we did not provide it.
The improvement in LRT's revenues means that it can invest getting on for twice as much in the Underground

next year in real terms as in 1985–86, with a levy which in real terms is about 30 per cent, lower than in that year. It is in that spirit that I commend the draft order to the House.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: May I be the first to congratulate the Minister on recognising the Government's past mistakes and welcome him to the ranks of those who believe that public transport needs more, not less, Government support? After years of striving to reduce public subsidy to London's transport system, the Minister has at last had to accept reality. LRT cannot be run as a profit-making machine. Even the increase in the grant which he is making, to £286·6 million, fails to provide for the real needs of London transport as perceived by Londoners and London Labour Members.
The Minister has given two reasons for the increase: first, to finance the improvements necessary to deal with increased passenger demand, and, secondly, to finance the recommendations in the Fennell report. I will return to both points in due course but, first, let me remind the Minister of his predecessors' views on public subsidy.
In 1985 the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) said:
our policies, which have already begun to deliver substantial savings for London ratepayers…are beginning to bear fruit. The outlook is that those savings will increase."—[Official Report, 12 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 291.]
We have, however, a levy increased by 50 per cent. In 1986 the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) said that LRT's aim was to secure better services and an improved passenger environment by reducing costs in all areas. He said:
Cost cutting is the key to LRT's success."—[Official Report, 28 January 1986, Vol. 90, c. 902.]
Ever since LRT was delivered into the hands of the Government all the talk has been of unit costs and savings. The word "safety" did not pass the lips of the responsible Minister once in 1985, 1986 or 1987. Even last year after the King's Cross fire, the Minister boasted that the burden on London's ratepayers was being halved over three years. Not surprisingly, though, on that occasion he said that safety was paramount in all that London Underground did.
It took the loss of 31 lives to make the Government act. Yet the need for new investment to deal with the increase in passenger traffic and the continuing decline in rolling stock and rail network were apparent long before that tragedy. According to the Government's own figures, set out in the central rail study and quoted by the Minister tonight, the number of passengers using the Underground rose from 305,000 in 1980 to 415,000 in 1988. By 1987 many of the central London lines were already badly overcrowded, and the forecasts show that that overcrowding will continue to be a problem.
The increase in the use of the Tube and the chronic overcrowding are putting huge strains on the system, which is clearly suffering from the under-investment of recent years. If, however, the Government had maintained public financial support at an adequate level, a start might have been made on alleviating overcrowding, and the Government would not now be seeking such a dramatic hike in the rates levy. More important, safety would not have been put at risk through the cost-cutting and privatisation measures that the Government have forced on LRT.
Opposition Members strongly support public investment to improve safety standards, but we cannot approve of the mess that the Government have made of LRT funding and the cavalier way in which they now seek to pass the major burden on to the ratepayer. Londoners are having to pay twice over, first through the rates and then through the fares. In case the Minister has conveniently forgotten, fares last month went up by an average of 12·4 per cent., more than double the rate of inflation. The Minister is content for Londoners to pay more and more, despite the unprecedented level of public dissatisfaction with the services available.
Public transport users in London want higher staffing levels, yet staff numbers have gone down by 15,000 in five years. They want more transport police, yet—despite constantly increasing crime levels—numbers were allowed to fall until the Guardian Angels shamed the Minister into action. Most of all, people want to feel safe. Of course we welcome the allocation of money to meet the recommendations of the Fennell report, but without a debate on that report we can hardly be satisfied that the Government have learned the lessons.
I remind the Minister that in his report Mr. Fennell said that while it was
clear on the evidence of Sir Keith that his Board did have proper regard to efficiency and economy…they did not impose the same criteria when it came to safety of operation.
Let me ask the Minister again: when do the Government intend to make time for a debate on the Fennell report? Will he explain tonight what conclusions he draws from the following statement in the report:
There was a feeling among London Underground managers that the financial climate would rule out proposals to increase spending in certain areas"?
Has that financial climate changed? I think not.
The Minister could help us further by telling us when he intends to announce LRT's new objectives. Does he not share our concern that the LRT business plan predicts a further 2 per cent, increase in use of the Underground, but a 4 per cent, fall in bus use? Surely he ought to be looking for ways of maximising the use of bus services, given the chaos caused by the increasing use of private cars and the degree of overcrowding on the Underground.
Will the Minister tell us whether he thinks that existing objectives are being met? Just two weeks ago two Underground stations had no lifts or escalators in use, 11 had a reduced lift service and 48 had at least one escalator out of action. Altogether about a quarter of all stations

were defective in terms of access or exit. Such circumstances are clearly dangerous, given the volume of passengers using the services and the numbers of incidents involving the fire brigade—which occur frequently.
I understand that between 1 December last year and the present date 253 fires have been reported in the Tube network, 53 serious enough to need the action of the fire brigade. I appreciate that there has been a change in reporting procedures and all incidents are now properly reported. None the less, those figures must be a cause for serious concern, particularly when we consider the new barriers which have been referred to this evening.
Tonight the Minister seeks, in his own words, to raise the levy on ratepayers to increase spending on safety measures following the King's Cross fire and to provide for higher investment to modernise the system and to increase its capacity. We endorse all those objectives, but they will not be completed in one year. The safety measures money is being spread over three years. This year ratepayers are being asked to contribute a dramatically increased amount, but the Minister has acknowledged that there will be a different story next year. With the poll tax there will no longer be a rate contribution towards the running of LRT. However, the contribution for 1989–90 is approximately £188 million.
Where will the extra money come from? I have asked LRT and it believes that it will come from the Exchequer. The Minister may be glad to grab that 65 per cent, from the ratepayers in 1989–90, but he will have to think again. We have no doubt that meeting the safety recommendations in the Fennell report and investing to improve London's public transport system demands a very substantial commitment from public funds. Will the Minister make it clear that he has accepted that, not just for 1989–90, when the King's Cross disaster is still fresh in our minds, but as an ongoing responsibility? The alternative, which would be consistent with the philosophy being pursued by the Government prior to the Fennell report, would be to load the Government's responsibility for investment on to the fare-paying passengers and to push LRT further down the road to putting profitability before passenger interests. That is what LRT users fear and what Opposition Members believe will happen.
The Government's about-turn on LRT funding tonight demonstrates that the House can have no confidence in the Government's ability to give proper support to the public transport system of this capital city.

Mr. John Hunt: My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the terms of the order will cause considerable dismay and unhappiness in the London borough of Bromley. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will concede that over the years Bromley council has established a much-envied reputation for prudent spending and good housekeeping. However, by increasing the LRT levy by 50 per cent. this order will undoubtedly have a most damaging impact on our local rate calculations. It represents an additional burden for Bromley;ratepayers of some £1·5 million and there is a similar pattern throughout the Greater London area. Unexpected external levies of this kind cause despair to those who carry the burden of looking after borough finances.
In the case of Bromley, despite my hon. Friend the Minister's remarks about the rate support grant this year, this levy comes on top of a grant settlement some £4 million lower than we had been led to expect and on top of an increase of 14·4 per cent. in the Metropolitan police precept. For Bromley's civic leaders, this levy is the proverbial last straw.
No doubt many of my hon. Friends will recall that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has said that he expects rate rises of not more than 2 per cent. this year, yet the LRT levy alone represents a 2 per cent. rate rise in Bromley. One is bound to question whether my right hon. Friend was aware of the impact of the LRT levy when he made his rate statement. If he was, he should in fairness have excluded the London boroughs from his general assessment, in view of the additional levy that they will have to bear. That is why there is a real sense of grievance and injustice in my borough and, I am sure, in many other London boroughs.
To draw another comparison, it is extraordinary that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning has been arguing that the cost of environmental improvements in the water supply should be paid for gradually over a period of years, whereas the improvements required by LRT have to be met out of one year's revenue. Even acknowledging the point about profitability, there seems to be an element of inconsistency.
My hon. Friend the Minister and I have been corresponding on this subject. In his reply of 6 February he rightly said that the increased investment in safety measures and modernisation for the Underground network must be paid for—no one would quarrel with that—but in defending the levy and its function of maintaining a balance between central and local government funding my hon. Friend wrote:
I see no reason to alter the balance now and certainly no case for shifting the burden more onto taxpayers, the majority of whom only use LRT services very rarely.
He made that point again today. I suggest that that argument can be extended to support Bromley's case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse') said in his telling intervention, areas such as Bromley and Twickenham do not enjoy any Underground service so our ratepayers have to carry part of the burden of providing the service mainly for other people. That is part of the reason for the resentment of the levy in boroughs such as Bromley.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take note of our concern and pay heed to the strong feelings in Bromley council and many other councils in outer London, and I hope that he will be able to offer us some hope and reassurance.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I want to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) with whom I have some sympathy—although, remembering the famous court judgment of some years ago, what has happened may have turned out to be poetic justice for Bromley's councillors, if not its ratepayers.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a 50 per cent. rate increase is steep. Will the Minister now intervene to tell us why he pretended that the rise was not one of 50 per cent? That claim took my breath away, and if he does not believe that he made it, he should read Hansard tomorrow.
On top of the 50 per cent. increase, fares have gone up by twice the rate of inflation. At the start of this year they rose by 12 per cent., which compares with a cost-of-living increase of about 6 per cent. The Government, who are proud to say that they are against inflation, have deliberately inflated fares—and rate support—in London. I do not see how the Prime Minister, herself a London Member, can square that with her policies—

Mr. Corbyn: She does not use the Tube.

Mr. Spearing: I was thinking of asking the right hon. Lady a question about the fact that passengers travelling from Finchley Central have to pay 50p to go between one stop and the next. Perhaps people in Finchley can afford that. If my constituents go from West Ham or Plaistow station to St. Andrew's hospital at Bromley-by-Bow, they have to pay 50p. If one is taking two or three people who do not have a travelcard, it costs £2 before you know where you are. That is wrong. There should be a fair scale of relatively reasonable fares for short stops for shopping or visiting hospitals in the suburban areas. To ask ordinary people to pay 50p for one stop is ridiculous.
It might be said that people could take the bus, but while there sometimes are bus services in the right direction, more often there are not. Trains can carry large numbers of people economically. Furthermore, the Minister said that the Government would get rid of the monolithic system of bus services in London so that it could serve the customer better. I see him nodding his head. Is he not aware that the London General Omnibus Co., which was the major supplier from about 1910 onwards, was a large single organisation? From 1933 onwards, with the agreement of both parties—the system was brought in by Herbert Morrison and continued by the Tories who succeeded him—we had a London Passenger Transport Board which was just that. I am not going to say that it was perfect, but the system was much better than what we shall get, which is 11 different firms, competing with each other, and facing competition from others. In the rest of the country in the 1930s, buses and men ran themselves into the dust, and competition and safety did not go together. I fear that we shall get that in London.
A few months ago, there was a strike at West Ham garage. The men had already been asked to drive longer distances over longer hours for the same pay. They would not put up with it. That strike is a harbinger. LRT—or is it London Buses Ltd.: I am not sure who is in charge—has


announced that it will get rid of all London wage bargaining. That is for only one purpose—to reduce the wages bit by hit because of competition. This is what Tory Members voted for when they voted for the London Regional Transport Act 1984. They also voted for these higher rates.
There will probably be more minibuses. They are all right, but they will be in competition. Some of the routes are changing over immediately, and I do not think that they will be more efficient. What was one of the finest transport systems in the world will be broken up. I see the hon. Member for Eltham ( Mr. Bottomley) is shaking his head.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): indicated dissent.

Mr. Spearing: I withdraw that. The Minister was not disagreeing with what I said. He will remember that a lot of his constituency transport is based on the old London county council tramways, which formed one of the best municipal services in the world.
We are all agreed on the need for safety, but the Government pay only lip service to it. At the time of the Clapham crash, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was happening in the signal department of the London underground system. I understand that LRT has gone in for the bidding process. I wrote to the Minister for Public Transport, and he replied to me on 25 January, saying:
I understand, nevertheless, that the control of signalling equipment procedures remains as strict as ever under the new arrangements and that safety standards are in no way compromised.
However, the financial climate under which the signalling staff of LRT work has changed. The term "financial climate" was very much to the fore in the Fennell report.
A change in the long-standing arrangements for organising the signalling of the London Underground can only disrupt what has been there before and bring safety into question. I do not understand how introducing these methods of internal bidding can maintain the same systems of safety. The Minister may have his reasons for maintaining his position, but the climate is now different.
I have argued with LRT about the single manning of the old Tube trains. I am leaving out the Victoria line because that was purpose built. Is it right that there should be only one person aboard a Tube train? I think not. Time and again, I have disagreed with London Underground when it has said that the leap-frogging safety procedure on one-person-operated lines is safe. I hope that no accident arises from that continuing risk.
Let us consider station staffing, particularly in the light of the Fennell recommendations. Fennell said that there must be emergency procedures at every station. I should have thought that, if there is an emergency at a station, the first thing that one would ask is how many people should be there. According to the Fennell report, it was stated that, for safety reasons, there must be a minimum number of personnel at each station. That is where we start. I fear that there is a tendency for London Underground to allocate a certain number of people and then say, "Given that number of people, let us work out the emergency procedure." If that is so, it is wrong. It is, to quote that famous phrase, the wrong financial climate in which to encourage safety.
I hope that the House will be able to debate the Fennell inquiry, as there was a major lacuna in the report. As I recall it, Mr. Fennell did not take any evidence about the influence of the financial regime on safety and the
operation of the railway. He specifically said that he would not take evidence on it. Yet, in his conclusion, he said that
he did not receive any evidence that suggested that the financial climate had a bearing upon the disaster.
That is my understanding of the matter. No doubt, the Minister, Mr. Fennell, or London Transport will correct me if I am wrong. I have every reason to believe that there was no opportunity for that evidence to be laid. Matters surrounding the Fennell inquiry must be cleared up once and for all, and, I hope, before the debate takes place.Perhaps that is one of the reasons for the reluctance to mount it.
All hon. Members, particularly hon. Ladies, know why Londoners are dissatisfied with the reduction in station staffing. Yet, even after the Fennell inquiry and the King's Cross disaster, London Underground is now introducing a scheme called "action stations", which is a reduction of staff in some outer stations. Those stations may not be underground, but we must remember what happened on the Bedford line not long ago. The reduction of staffing beyond a point of wisdom encourages people to be up to no good. A note that I have received today from London Underground contains weasel words. It states:
The 'Action Stations' scheme for outer London stations is presently the subject of an adjudication by the Wages Board.
In other words, there has been an industrial dispute. It
goes on:
Both the trade unions and ourselves await their judgment. We will then consider how to proceed. This scheme involves fewer, more flexible, more responsive and better motivated staff. No compulsory redundancies are envisaged. The aim is to provide a better service to the passenger and a more satisfactory job for staff.
That covers up a reduction in staff, which is extraordinary in the current climate. How are we to get better-motivated staff by cutting numbers? I suppose that it is just about possible, but certainly not in the current climate.
I move on from "action stations", because it deals with outer-London areas, to what I understand was a possible scheme for central London. London Underground went on:
There is no intention to replicate Action Stations scheme in Central London. No 'plan' to change station staffing arrangements there exists. However we constantly review our procedures against the yardstick of what passengers expect in terms of service. Station staffing arrangements are no different in this respect.
I can tell London Underground and the Minister what the
public expect. They expect more staff in central London stations. They expect them to be back to the sort of standards that we had not long ago before the cuts. That is what the public expect and what I believe the House requires.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Millions of Londoners are waking up to the reality that more and more roads in the urban environment are not the answer to the problems of traffic in London. The problems of traffic are caused by an unprecedented demand in rail,Tube and road use, coupled with a further massive demand in the use of aeroplanes. Those are the symptoms
of a healthy and expanding economy. In the Greater


London area there is almost full employment and many individuals have higher disposable incomes. The massive switch to public transport is due not only to the healthy economy, which has been the result of the Government's efforts, but to the saner policies of London Regional Transport in recent years as well as the Government's policies towards LRT.
I fully accept that there are people around the Greater London area who feel that the local subsidy is unfair. I accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) said, that the Bromley ratepayers have felt over the years that they have been beleaguered by London Transport, and those feelings culminated in the famous court case. That court case was probably the tip of the iceberg. It showed dissatisfaction and bewilderment with the policies of London Transport as run by the GLC. In recent years it has ceased to be a political football, which I believe is one of the reasons why more and more people are using the service. I can understand, however, why the people of Bromley feel hard done by. They are ill served by the great network which is LRT, and it appears that they will be ill served by any increases in service. Nevertheless, a growing service will eventually reach all parts of London, and I hope that it will be a substitute for increased car use.
In talking about subsidy, we must remember that, of revenue expenditure on LRT, 75 per cent. of bus expenditure and 85 per cent. of Tube expenditure this year comes from fares, so those who use the system are actually paying a high proportion of the costs involved. The balance comes from the levy. The majority of the remaining expenditure for capital investment comes for capital investment, from the levy and the balance from the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne asked what is so urgent about the capital expenditure planned for the next two or three years. Frankly, I know of nothing that is more urgent than to maintain the safety of 2·5 million people travelling every day. I do not believe that we can compromise with safety. The Fennell report ordered urgent action, which meant urgent costs. I believe that the incurring of those costs is for the benefit of all and that we must pay them. In addition, we must pay to improve the service to maintain the extra numbers of people who choose to use London Regional Transport every day. Underground services have been increased in a way that we never thought possible. The purchase of 16 additional trains at a cost of £45 million is bound to ease the overcrowding that we now have on five lines.
Why is there overcrowding? Is it because we have cut services, as the GLC in its dying throes said that we would? On the contrary, we have increased services. It is because of increased demand—and increased demand must be met by increased expenditure.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanley: I have only a short time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be making his own excellent speech in due course.
Overall, a 5 per cent. increase in the level of service on the Underground is planned for next year. That will be achieved partly by increasing the number of scheduled trains and partly by reducing train cancellations. Better management will have—and is already having—a positive

effect on the success of LRT today. Bus services must become more reliable, trains less crowded and average waiting times shorter. Unless that happens, demand for car use will increase and that is the way to disaster. People already complain about the unacceptable congestion on inner London roads. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is present. He knows that I believe that there must be an acceptable level of misery on London roads because improved traffic flow would merely suck in more and more cars, causing greater traffic density and further blockages. We need to increase bus and Underground use.
It has been said that fares have increased by double the rate of inflation, but even after allowing for inflation LRT fares have fallen well behind London wages since 1980 and in that respect are no higher than they were then. One must not match fare inflation with general inflation, pick out a particular statistic and then claim that we are hard done by.
London Buses is the Cinderella of the LRT network. During the GLC abolition campaign posters went up saying, "Come on in No. 9—your time is up." The No. 9 bus serves the northern part of my constituency. I am proud to say that it is still running despite the problems with Hammersmith bridge and I use it regularly, although, of course, it could be better.

Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman uses Hammersmith bridge?

Mr. Hanley: Yes, I use it regularly, so perhaps I am partly to blame for the damage.
The London bus network has been maintained and during the past few years there have been no major route cuts. Frequent midibus services operate around London, which are extremely popular, and in those areas where they operate more people choose to travel by bus than ever before. Bus miles have increased and are planned to increase by a further 4 per cent. in the coming year.
One poster used during the GLC abolition campaign said that pensioners would lose their concessionary fares, but that has not happened. I remember that in Committee the majority of Conservative Members present voted in favour of concessionary fares and subsequently the Government agreed not merely to accept concessionary fares for a short time but to entrench them in statute to protect London pensioners in a way never contemplated by the Labour party.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanley: No.
I remember the misery of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) when he realised that London pensioners would be grateful to the Government and that the Government were about to reverse the lie that had been put about by the GLC scaremongers.
London Buses had established CareLink between main line stations and has converted all its AirBuses so that they are equipped for wheelchairs. Dial-a-Ride facilities have increased dramatically and a further £1 million invested last year means that £7 million has been invested in the service. Since 1985–86, investment in that service has increased by more than 40 per cent.
Why are buses still considered unattractive alternatives to the Underground? It is because of illegal parking. My


hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport must grasp this nettle quickly. We need to ensure that local authorities are better funded so that they can deal with illegal parking. We must have a better parking warden system and everything must be done on the major routes to end such parking, which is the major cause of delays to London's buses.
There are now 4,100 one-person operated buses and 600 Routemasters. The OPOs have not been universally popular and I am glad that LRT has been sensitive enough to retain Routemasters where they have a clear advantage over the OPOs. But the OPOs are more reliable than Routemasters because only one member of staff is needed before they are taken out, they are warmer because the doors close and they are safer because people do not drop off the back of the bus as they used to do in the old days. London Buses thus maintains a healthy network and a healthy list of equipment.
In regard to investment in LRT this year, £236 million will go to London Underground, £70 million to Docklands, but only £25 million to buses. Yet 80 per cent. of cars crossing London bridges contain only one person. That must be mad. Clearly people travelling in cars should be encouraged to travel in vehicles carrying many more people. If they need to be encouraged by ticketing, road pricing or fining, so be it, but the best way to encourage them would be to have even more attractive, flexible and fluid routing on London Buses.
Finally, we have deregulation throughout the country, but we do not have deregulation in London. A date in the 1990s has been set. I believe that London Buses deserves and needs a fixed date to be able to work towards deregulation in London.
Demand on London Regional Transport fell by 25 per cent. in the late 1970s and early 1980s under the GLC, and, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has said, it has risen by 50 per cent. in the past few years. The hon. Lady, while agreeing with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Minister said, again used transport and the deaths of individuals as a political football. She misquoted the Fennell report which states:
There is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy available to LRT was inadequate to finance necessary safety-related spending and maintain safety standards".
In other words, it is not because the Government have not invested— it was partly because of failures at every level in London Regional Transport, which have now been put right, but the main reason for the fire was a genuine accident, although that may be unpalatable to those looking for a political scapegoat.
I am proud of the Government's investment in London Regional Transport. I believe that ratepayers in London want an ever better system and that the proportion of ratepayers' and central taxpayers' money spent on transport is basically fair. Nobody wants to pay more rates, but the system benefits mainly Londoners and Londoners should be proud to pay for it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not complain that the subsidy this year has increased by 50 per cent. That is because the subsidy has been considerably less during the past two years. But the subsidy of nearly £290 million this year is less than the subsidy in 1986 which was £295 million or in 1985 when it was £325 million.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and I disagree with the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). It is the King's Cross fire which has produced the extra subsidy from the taxpayer and the ratepayer. If the Minister does not accept that, I quote back at him part of his own letter to London Members of Parliament earlier this month, much of which he repeated tonight:
There are 2 main reasons why the grant to LRT and the associated levy on London's ratepayers needs to be increased in 1989–90:
The first
is increased spending on safety measures following the King's Cross fire".
He goes on to explain that:
The Government has made full provisions for the £266 million sought by LRT for this purpose over the next 3 years and of this some £80 million will fall in 1989–90.
Only now have the Government recognised that safety and
security have to be paid for and it is disgraceful that that was not recognised in the past. Therefore, I do not believe that the public in London will complain that more taxpayers' and ratepayers' money has to be contributed towards it. The Department of Transport's statistics confirm that revenue support in 1987–88 was only a third of the support of 10 years ago. Central Government have been regularly reducing revenue and ratepayer support rather than increasing it. That this year a small alteration in this pattern has taken place is almost entirely because of the King's Cross fire.
It appears from LRT's business plan, however, that the support is still not enough. First, it was calculated that inflation would be 4 per cent., and it seems that it is now more likely to be 7 or 8 per cent. Secondly, LRT states that the costs of safety improvements may be subject to underestimates. Thirdly, it says that the costs of the outcome of the central London rail study have not been taken adequately into account. Those are sums for the future and sums for now. The probability is that even LRT's needs, as it has assessed them, will not be met. As a result, we shall not be coping with passenger demand adequately. We appreciate that that demand is increasing, and that is good because passenger transport should have substantially greater use, but the possibility is admitted in the business plan that no visible improvements will be made to customer service, even with the increased sum that is to be granted.
The reality is that passengers are being made to pay. They have just been asked to pay, on average, 12·5 per cent. more in fares. Many passengers are paying a substantially greater increase than that. Those who use monthly travel cards for the central and inner zones have to pay nearly 19 per cent. more per year than hitherto. The Government are still saying, however, even with the increase in grant this year, that it is principally passengers who should meet the cost of improvements. Even capital investment will have to be paid for by the passengers. Central London rail study implications and east London rail study implications are likely to be funded substantially by passengers.
I think that the Minister will confirm that passengers contribute more than two thirds of the cost of travelling or LRT. Between them, the taxpayer and the ratepayer contribute less than a third, which is in turn divided two thirds to the ratepayer and one third to the taxpayer. I have only one appropriate comparison but there are others. In Paris, passengers pay 34 per cent. of the cost of


travel. That is more as it should be. If the capital has a good transport system, the nation is well served. The capital has to work well, and to work well it must travel well. That is an argument that the Government have always used.
It is also inappropriate for the Government to claim that there is adequate investment when in all their plans and projections they look increasingly to the private sector for that investment. The same policy does not apply to the road system. Announcements have been made of improvements to the A13 and the north circular, for example. The roads are enjoying substantial public sector investment but the railways, the Underground system and the buses are not. I endorse the argument of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes that the buses especially are still the Cinderella service. I ask the Minister seriously to take into account that buses are not receiving anything like the investment that is needed in London.
Some areas of London are not served by the Underground system. Areas such as my constituency are not generally served by it. Southwark is an area that relies almost entirely on the buses, but it is the Underground system, because of the King's Cross disaster, which is receiving the greatest share of increased subsidy and investment, not the buses.
There is also not sufficient strategic planning for LRT. If the Government are seeking increasingly to cut public subsidy and to look to the private sector, new facilities will be built and provided that the private sector wishes to fund. That is not the way strategically to plan London's transport. I do not begrudge some of the potential initiatives. I am not against the proposal of a line from Waterloo to the Isle of Dogs to be funded privately, or partly privately, but that is not strategic planning. That is responding to a specific interest by a specific private sector developer.
Against this background, congestion will worsen. Congestion is self-generating. The Tube platforms become full and the train doors cannot shut as too many passengers try to enter the carriages. The delays are longer and there are therefore fewer trains, so more passengers wait on the platforms. Above ground, buses go slowly, then cars pile up and then the roads become full, so people decide that they will not go by bus because the buses go slower and the average speed is reduced. The whole process is cyclical. We must cut through the traditional reduction of the role of public transport.
The situation will also become far worse with the implications of the Channel tunnel. As passengers disgorge at Waterloo, King's Cross, Stratford or wherever, there will be 5 million, 10 million or 15 million extra passengers and we clearly must have the capacity to deal with them. The increase in the use of public transport in London by people outside London, as well as the development in the East End, means that we need substantial public investment now if our capital city is not to grind to a halt in all respects in the 1990s.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall finish in a moment, so I shall not give way because I want to allow other hon. Members to speak.
The Government have no strategic planning. The central London rail study reports one week and the east London rail study is commissioned the next. In places such as my constituency, we still have poor public transport. It is no good having as the answers a little bit of investment one year, a central London rail study to deal with central London congestion and an east London rail study to deal with prospective growth in the East End in the next. Many parts of London are not affected by those area planning projects. South-east London, which has been a transport white hole for a long time, hardly benefits at all according to any of those plans. We really need to have a better, coherent, integrated transport policy for London. That will require—in the interests of the country as a whole, as well as the capital city—substantially increased public investment. It is no good saying that we have 50 per cent. more investment this year and to be apologetic about it. The Government should not be apologetic. We need the investment. The taxpayer and the ratepayer should be asked to pay and will willingly pay if they see the benefits of that investment in the capital's daily transport service.

Mr. John Bowis: The levy and the debate are about the level, the standard and the safety of the service. Many hon. Members have referred to safety, as is right. "Salus populi suprema lex"—people's safety is the highest law—is the old legal maxim. That is right in the context of the Fennell inquiry and report into the King's Cross fire. No hon. Member would begrudge the money being spent to put right some of the dangers that have been identified. I welcome the steps that have been taken to put that right. My questions relate to how that is to be paid for, who pays and who benefits.
A great irony arises from the fact that within the past year we have had two transport disasters within the London boroughs area. One was at King's Cross and the other at Clapham junction, in my own constituency. The irony relates to the inquiry that is looking into the Clapham junction disaster and will come up with recommendations. Each of them will, I hope, be agreed by the House and put into practice by the powers that be. But they will not be a burden on the ratepayers of London, but spread across the taxpayers of the country. To a considerable extent, the King's Cross recommendations are to be a burden exclusively on the London ratepayers. Sixty-six per cent. of the costs of safety measures will be a burden on London ratepayers, yet the people using London transport come from a wider area, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out.
If one stands any morning at Waterloo station, one sees people coming in from Reading and Reigate, Epsom and Esher and pouring down the holes in the ground. Of course, if they go on the Drain to the City, they are on a British Rail line which is paid for by the taxpayer, but on any other line they pay the same fare as the Londoners travelling, but benefit from the extra subsidy that Londoners are paying through their rates towards the cost of the Underground and bus services. That is what some of us feel is a little hard to swallow. But even if I swallow hard and say that that is acceptable on the ground of safety, when I look at the figures—£190 million increasing to £287 million and a rate levy of 6p in the pound to 9p in the pound—I realise that that is a 50 per cent. increase in the cost to my constituents. Fifty per cent. and there has


been no warning, no consultation, no explanation and no justification. If local authorities wanted to increase rates by 50 per cent. the whole House would rightly go mad.
Many of my hon. Friends, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), have suggested that there are good reasons for major investment and I do not disagree with that, but if we are to have a 50 per cent. increase in the levy, I want to see something approaching a 50 per cent. increase in the service. However, all that London Regional Transport boasts in its plans is a 5 per cent. improvement in its Underground service and a 5 per cent. increase in the bus mileages to be covered in the coming year. And, lo and behold, it also boasts that no major routes will be withdrawn. Although I am sure that we are all pleased about that, that is not quite the 50 per cent. increase for which we had hoped.
Of course, major routes are to cross London and go out to docklands and so on, but 90 per cent. of the area that I represent does not have an Underground service. As anyone who travels through it knows, it is the place where one starts to slow down when driving into work. It is the area in which we want to get people off the roads and on to public transport, but we cannot put them on the Underground because there is no Underground link connecting with Clapham junction. That is something on which I should like London Regional Transport to come forward with plans. I do not ask for it to happen tomorrow or under this year's plan but only that it should come about in at least a few years' time so that hon. Members can look ahead and say to our constituents and commuters, "Yes, there is a plan and in the course of time there will be schemes to link the Chelsea-Hackney line to Clapham junction so that we can then link it further south."
I do have one little Underground line in my constituency. It is the black line, in fact the southern end of the Northern line. All the reports that I have been reading have stated that that is the one bit of the Northern line that cannot be improved. However, it could be improved if we could take some of the passengers off it. If one took the link down to Clapham junction and extended it to the southern end of the Northern line, one could improve even that line and make life more bearable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes painted a happy picture of his borough with buses all over the place, although I gather that people occasionally fall off the back of them. My hon. Friend is proud of the No. 9 bus. All I can say to him is that if he comes across a No. 9, perhaps he will send it back to Battersea because we do not see them very often there.
I want a better bus service. I want one that is flexible enough to cope with the occasional disaster like the closing of Battersea bridge so that buses can be fed and people can walk across the bridge to board a bus at the other side. That does not happen at the moment. The buses are sent all round the park and people have to walk half a mile to get a bus to get to their jobs. I want a bus service that is flexible enough to allow Hoppa buses to cope with the developing areas of my part of London and buses that can go down those streets where the Routemasters and the one-person-operated buses cannot get because of low bridges.
Tonight I am issuing a challenge not to the Government, but to London Regional Transport. I challenge its officials to get from behind their desks in

Broadway and look at their map. If they do so, they will see a wiggly blue line at the bottom. It is not the English channel; it is the wiggly blue line beyond which London Regional Transport rarely travels. It is the boundary of the river Thames. All that I ask is that the second, the lower, the southern half of London is given a chance in the investment made by London Regional Transport, especially in Underground services, but also in bus services. If London Regional Transport puts us on its drawing board, we shall put it back on our giving list next Christmas for an increase in the levy.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) is right that the increase in the levy is not justified. I oppose the 50 per cent. increase imposed upon London ratepayers to pay for an unaccountable Tory-run quango. I say "Tory-run" because the new chairman is a failed Tory candidate, carrying out the same failed Tory transport policies as his predecessors. The Government are presiding over an increasingly run-down, deteriorating and dangerous service for which London commuters and travellers are being asked to pay more and more.
I draw attention, on behalf of the bus users in my constituency, to the new yellow bus fare zone that has been imposed across Leyton. I wrote to LRT about it and was told in a letter that the extra zone
is not restricted to passengers from your constituency …. I recognise the fact that they have enjoyed relatively low-priced travel for some years in the past.
LRT could have fooled my constituents that it was low-priced travel, although they enjoyed that brief period when the GLC cut fares substantially, before the Government blocked that move and increased the fares again. The letter went on:
I recognise that that will be of little consolation now to those who have had to pay what is effectively a 'catching-up' rise this time. I am afraid that these changes are necessary if we are to meet our financial targets.
Those targets were, of course, imposed by the Government. We are talking in this case not just about a 12·5 per cent. fare rise imposed by LRT on top of the annual inflation increase, but an additional rise for local residents who cross that yellow zone line. It means that residents of Leyton pay four times for worse services as staff are sacked and roads become increasingly congested. Under the levy order they are having to pay a rates increase of 50 per cent., a 12·5 per cent. fare rise and an additional amount for the yellow zone. I protest most vigorously about that.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Newham, North (Mr. Banks), served in 1984 on the Standing Committee which considered what became the London Regional Transport (Amendment) Act 1985. We fought that measure line by line and everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton predicted has come to pass. He predicted that the Government's proposals would result in a worse service and higher fares, leading to the sort of problems and chaos that now exist. He was far-sighted in 1984 and he is right again tonight.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend can intervene whenever he likes if he compliments me in that way.
I wish that my


predictions had not become reality. London's travellers would benefit if we did not have a regime which imposed those sort of burdens on them.
Like many Londoners, I regard the new automatic barriers at Underground stations as unsafe, especially after the King's Cross fire, and inconvenient, particularly for women with prams and people carrying luggage. The Minister referred to consultants having been appointed to look into the matter. Who are they? Nobody has heard of Mott McDonald. Perhaps they have been used by LRT to do a little whitewash job in the past, and now they are being used for a big whitewash job. Even while that exercise is in progress, 118 barriers are being installed and other stations are having exits blocked. It looks very much like a PR fraud and I warn the Minister that we will be watching the situation closely.

Mr. Tony Banks: I commend my hon. Friend for campaigning so vigorously against the ludicrous barriers that are now being installed in the London Underground system. They seem to have been designed by a man carrying nothing but a newspaper under his arm. People carrying packages in both hands find it virtually impossible to pass through. They were designed by a cretin and LRT must think we are cretins if it believes we are going to carry on using them.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and represents the view of London travellers.
The Minister should have the decency to require of London Regional Transport publication of the fire and health and safety reports for every station where automatic barriers are installed. We have a right to know whether those stations are safe, and what the fire and safety experts have to say about them. That information would contribute to the public debate, and might allow changes to be made. It is immoral of the Government not to publish those reports.
Last week, I asked for a speedy answer to my question about the cost of installing automatic barriers. I hoped to receive that answer by today, but I suspect that I shall receive it tomorrow—long after this debate has ended. I suspect that the cost of installing that wasteful system runs into millions of pounds—and London ratepayers will be charged 50 per cent. of that expense. What a scandal that is.
A "World in Action" programme a couple of weeks ago described going into the Underground as being like a descent into hell. But apart from the discomfort, there is danger there—with many serious accidents and even death a likely consequence of the overcrowding which has been caused by underinvestment and the lack of co-ordinated planning over the years.
Another element in overcrowding is the Government's employment policy. They have sold out to the land and property speculators in the suburbs, so that factories that used to provide local employment have closed down, with the people who used to work there being forced to travel to London to work. As Government policy contributes to overcrowding, the Government ought to pay to overcome it, and not compel London ratepayers to do so.

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to give the Government credit for re-equipping the Central line, which serves his constituency, at a cost of £700 million.

Mr. Cohen: I give the Government credit for nothing in respect of their transport policy. It has not been particularly good for the Central line. The hon. Gentleman should have used his minute to talk about the escalators at Walthamstow Central station, which have not operated for months on end.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will my hon. Friend reflect not only on the Government's delay in making much-needed improvements to the Central line, but the total absence of any progress in improving the Northern line—which is the real Cinderella of the system?

Mr. Cohen: There are problems facing all lines, as they suffer from chronic underinvestment over the years, for which the Government must take responsibility.
The order concerns ratepayers, and the Conservatives should be known as the party of high rates. That is what they are. They have cut rate support grant by about £24 billion, forcing rates up in borough after borough. On 15 February, the House discussed business rates, and the newspapers carried headlines such as
Ridley defends steep rate rises".
Some businesses face a 193 per cent. increase in their rates over five years.

Mr. Corbyn: In addition to the Conservatives being known as the party of high rates, they should he known as the Government of central diktat. London local authorities have lost the opportunity to make any serious decisions on planning issues. Once a year, we are allowed to spend one and a half hours in the middle of the night debating a vital issue such as transport. That makes a nonsense of democracy and of participatory planning.

Mr. Cohen: I agree completely that we do not get a proper opportunity to make London Regional Transport accountable.
The Tories are the party of high rates. Putting 50 per cent. on to the burden for ratepayers is conclusive proof of that. Even the leader of Bromley council, Mr. Barkway, said that the move was absolutely outrageous. There is fury in all camps. How can the Government make a statement that the rates can only go up by 2 per cent.? The Department of the Environment is clearly not aware of what the Department of Transport is planning. How can the Government allow this to go on without consultation? It shows the fraud that the Government have perpetrated on ratepayers over the years.
Conservative party members in my borough went out with hard-pressed ratepayers to demonstrate when the rates were forced up a couple of years ago because of the huge penalties imposed by the Government. They sponsored demonstrations in many cases. Yet here we have Conservative Members supporting rate rises. The Conservatives are the party of high rates. They should not be allowed to get away with such hypocrisy.

Mr. Tony Banks: Can my hon. Friend imagine what the position would have been if the Greater London council had gone for a 50 per cent. increase? The debate would not have been reduced to one and a half hours at this time of night; it would have been blasted across all the newspapers


—not just the London newspapers but the national newspapers. This is what has replaced the GLC and democratic debate. It is a load of rubbish and a farce. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out in his speech, which I hope will last at least another three minutes.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend has made a good point.
The director of finance in Waltham Forest has said that the rise will mean that ratepayers will have to contribute an additional £980,000. One reason, suggested perhaps cynically, is that 1989 is the last opportunity for London ratepayers to be asked to contribute towards LRT's costs, as no levy is to be made in the future. The Government are soaking London ratepayers when they can get away with it. Next year they will soak poll tax payers, albeit in a different way. They will take away the grant from local authorities and the poll tax will be higher and higher.
The Government have pretended that it is a question of safety, but safety has been a low priority for the Government year after year. That was clear in the wake of the King's Cross fire. The Government have not been putting in a proper contribution. They are still not contributing enough to make up for the years of cuts and neglect of London's transport system.
The Tories should be known as an anti-ratepayer and an anti-public transport party in London. That is why I oppose the levy. It is an imposition that should not be put on London ratepayers on top of the recent fare increases. We need more than one short debate to make that known to the people. Transport will become a vital issue in local elections and in the next general election. It will be a contributory factor in sweeping the Government out of office. It will be one of the few things that moves the Government. If the transport system—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 10.


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William


Amess, David
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Amos, Alan
Chapman, Sydney


Arbuthnot, James
Chope, Christopher


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ashby, David
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, David
Durant, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Eggar, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Fallon, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Favell, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Forth, Eric


Bowls, John
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brazier, Julian
Franks, Cecil


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Freeman, Roger


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butler, Chris
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carrington, Matthew
Gregory, Conal





Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hanley, Jeremy
Portillo, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Powell, William (Corby)


Harris, David
Raffan, Keith


Hayward, Robert
Redwood, John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunter, Andrew
Shersby, Michael


Irvine, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jack, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Summerson, Hugo


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knowles, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lawrence, Ivan
Thurnham, Peter


Lightbown, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lord, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Walden, George


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Waller, Gary


Maclean, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wheeler, John


Mans, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Maples, John
Wilkinson, John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Mills, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas


Neubert, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Nicholls, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Norris, Steve



Paice, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. Alan Howarth.




NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Parry, Robert


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Clelland, David
Spearing, Nigel


Gordon, Mildred



Loyden, Eddie
Tellers for the Noes:


McAllion, John
Mr. Harry Cohen and


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft London Regional Transport (Levy) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 19th December, he approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.).

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Laganside Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 25th October 1988, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 14th November 1988, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Brian O'Donoghue

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor].

Mr. Ernie Ross: Mr. James O'Donoghue is a small business man trading as J. K. Allan, which is a company involved in plumbing and electrical work. His son Brian O'Donoghue left school in 1985 and started at Kingsway technical college in Dundee on a plumbing and technical course for a City and Guilds certificate. Mr. O'Donoghue then approached the local MSC area office in Dundee for advice on assistance with training of apprentices. That was in response to an approach made by the Construction Industry Training Board, which had requested that Mr. O'Donoghue take on an apprentice electrician. He advised the board that there was not enough electrical work to justify that and to ensure that proper training would be given to an apprentice electrician, but he offered to start an apprentice plumber. That is the job that he created, and the vacancy was filled by his son.
Mr. O'Donoghue then tried to register his son as a YTS apprentice and was advised that that was not allowed as he was in employment. However, the CITB said that grants were available if Mr. O'Donoghue's son attended technical college on the appropriate courses recognised by the CITB, which lead to a qualification as a time-served, certified plumber. Mr. O'Donoghue agreed, and his son attended college on block release. When Mr. O'Donoghue applied for the grant from the CITB he was informed that, as his son had not started his career as a YTS trainee, no grant was available apart from a single payment of £200, the grant payable to English and Welsh employers who elect not to send their apprentices on block release but to send them on day release instead.
As no day release is available in Scotland, Mr. O'Donoghue naturally felt that this was grossly unfair. When he complained to the CITB management he was told that a special payment of £550 would be made if he continued to send his son to college.
Mr. O'Donoghue was given two reasons for the non-YTS rule. First, on YTS the numbers of apprentices can be controlled. However, inquiries revealed that in 1985, of the 158 YTS places allocated to the Tayside region, only 101 were filled. The number of apprentice plumbers on YTS attending Kingsley college in 1985 was only six. If those figures are projected into the future, there will be a serious shortage of skilled plumbers by 1995. Indeed, the CITB chairman, Derek Gaulter, openly states that there is an acute shortage of trainees now. In his words, their numbers are
insufficient to meet natural wastage let alone to provide the skilful work force needed to sustain growth.
Despite this assertion, the CITB picked out plumbing apprentices who were not on YTS in 1985 to disqualify them from grant payment from 1987 onwards. Other apprentices, such as joiners, bricklayers and plasterers, who are also covered by the CITB, are not affected.
The second reason given was that the rule was introduced as a cost-cutting measure by the CITB. Every adult employed in the building industry is levied by the CITB. The levy is paid by the employer annually and is in the region of £70 to £95 a year per class of employee. This

money is used to pay for all aspects of training within the industry. The board under the Industrial Training Act 1982 collects this money by Acts of Parliament.
The recent history of the plumbing industry is that many plumbers have started their own businesses, but not paid a levy to the CITB, either because they are unaware of the levy, or their payroll is less than £15,000 a year. To counteract the loss of revenue the CITB made a decision in 1985 not to support non-YTS apprentices.
However, due to the decline of the industry, many firms have few apprentices or trainees, but continue to pay large levies to the board. In the financial year 1987–88, the board showed a surplus of £13,548,000. The CITB has also used money that was to have been used for training purposes to buy Government stocks and bonds to the value of ?60 million. In other words, the CITB introduced the non-YTS rule simply to save money, while at the same time running a surplus of millions of pounds. My constituent and his son see the actions of the CITB over the past few years in that light.
As the Minister knows, I raised this matter on Mr. O'Donohue's behalf as early as January 1988. The Under-Secretary, who has responsibility for the CITB, said at first that there was nothing wrong, and he would not interefere. There was persistent letter-writing and telephoning—;much of it, I admit and the Minister will confirm, done by my constituent, who has taken an extraordinary interest in his son's affairs. It is only fair to compliment Mr. O'Donehue on his determination to ensure that his son receives the support training that one would hope that one's children would receive when they go into employment.
At first, the Minister said that there was nothing wrong, and he would not interfere, but after this series of exchanges he told me that he was not entirely satisfied with the situation, and he confirmed, in his letter of 14 June 1988, that he would be calling on the board to
simplify its grant system and adopt a more flexible policy for grant aid, moving the emphasis away from the particular pattern of training being followed and placing it instead upon the achievement of vocational qualifications, based upon standards of competence established by industry. In this way I hope to encourage the Board to free the training market in the industry from unnecessary complaints.
In a further letter to Mr. O'Donoghue, the Under-Secretary confirmed his earlier decision and restated that he would not intervene but expected that conditions would change in 1990, and Mr. O'Donoghue's son would then qualify. He will then be too old. It appears that the Minister has identified a serious fault in the grants procedure, but, due to his earlier decisions, has taken no immediate action to assist my constituent, whose persistent and determined campaign on behalf of his employee highlighted the anomaly in the first instance.
It is clear from its annual accounts that the CITB has no shortage of money, and that it discriminates not only between YTS and non-YTS young people but between England and Wales, and Scotland, as there is no day release in Scotland. Although the board is determined not to fund non-YTS youths, it will expect to be paid on those same youths when they are older, have completed their training and are working in the industry.
When this matter was first raised, my constituent was the only employer in Scotland affected by the rule. When it was introduced, it affected another two companies and apprentices, but they quickly dropped out of employment, so until quite recently my constituent was the only


employer affected by the decision taken by the CITB in 1985. It has taken the Minister over six months to admit that the changes need to be made, but if the rules will he wrong in 1990, they were wrong in 1985 and both Mr. O'Donoghue and his son have been badly treated. The situation will have changed only because of my constituent's determination to challenge what is clearly a harsh ruling, and his son will not benefit because by the time the changes come in, his son will be too old. It appears that, although my constituent has highlighted this matter and brought it to the Minister's attention, he stands to gain nothing from it. It certainly does not help his son.
Mr. O'Donoghue's son may have been taken on by his father as an apprentice plumber in exactly the kind of circumstances which the existing Manpower Services Commission and CITB rules envisaged as normal for the industry, hut, for every set of rules, there are legitimate exceptions for which Ministers should be prepared to make special provision.
Mr. O'Donoghue and his son are hard-working citizens who are endeavouring to keep in business the kind of small family company which the Government properly claim that they want to help. Mr. O'Donoghue had undertaken to provide an apprenticeship in the family business, and there should have been no problem in ensuring that he be given all possible help by the Government and other agencies to do so. Only mind-boggling bureaucratic hair-splitting can lead to a situation in which no agency would give proper support to his son's apprenticeship.
The purpose of the Industrial Training Act 1982 was to make better provision for and to encourage adequate training of apprentices. One assumes that the CITB exists for those very purposes. Therefore, why could it not come to Brian O'Donoghue's assistance by helping to fund his training programme, as it already does for other apprentices? Mr. O'Donoghue should not have been penalised for trying to give his son a start in life, rather than allowing him to leave school and start life on the unemployment register.
This saga, which has dragged on since 1985, ended rather tragically on 1 February 1989. My constituent's company went through a period when it required all its employees to make a contribution to the work in hand. My constituent was forced to make his son redundant. Brian O'Donoghue is now unemployed. No matter the rights and wrongs of the case, and no matter how my constituent decided to pursue this matter, the CITB may not be too happy with the way in which this employer has challenged it at every turn. It may not like the fact that that he has highlighted an anomaly in the 1985 decision—that is, that it did not leave room for the exceptions that one would normally expect.
Through no fault of his own, Brian O'Donoghue is now unemployed. I ask the CITB to do all that it can to ensure that he does not suffer because of its decision and by the failure of his employer, who also happens to be his father, to continue to employ him and to continue to allow him time off to attend college.
Therefore, even at this late stage, I call on the Minister to reverse his decision and use his considerable influence to release financial support for Brian O'Donoghue's continuing apprenticeship. The sums involved for a small family business such as the O'Donoghues' are minuscule, compared with the CITB's massive surplus. That is an extremely relevant point, given that the CITB's accounts for 1987 showed a surplus of more than £87 million.

Therefore, a shortage of funds cannot be cited as the cause of the board's failure to support Mr. O'Donoghue's son. It is clear that someone at the Minister's level is required to make a decision.
As I said, in every matter the Government have flexibility and responsibility finally to give advice and say that, for whatever reason, there are exceptions to every rule. The Minister can make that decision in the case of Brian O'Donoghue without seriously jeopardising the CITB's proposals. Given that the Minister has already identified expected changes to the CITB, it is not too much to ask him to say that he will take on board the O'Donoghues' determination to try to ensure that their son can make a useful contribution to the construction industry as a time-served plumber, and, even at this late stage, will intervene to help my constituent Brian O'Donoghue.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): As the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) knows, I am well aware of the case involving his constituent, Mr. James O'Donoghue, and his son Brian. As has been made clear here tonight, there has been a great deal of correspondence involving the CITB and Ministers at the Scottish Office, as well as my own Department, and meetings have also been arranged to allow Mr. O'Donoghue to put his case to the Construction Industry Training Board and to my own officials here in London.
Before I comment on the particular details of Mr. O'Donoghue's case, I think it would be helpful to the House if I outlined the relationship that exists between the Government and the Construction Industry Training Board.
The CITB is a statutory body, established under legislation now consolidated in the Industrial Training Act 1982. It exists to encourage adequate training to appropriate standards in the construction industry throughout Great Britain. The chairman and members of the board are appointed by the Secretary of State for Employment—in most cases after consultation with employer organisations, unions or educational interests in the industry.
The board's main source of income is the levy it raises from employers in the industry. Each year, the board has to present its levy proposals to the Training Commission for approval. The commission then passes the proposals to Ministers for consideration, and, if we are content, we bring them before the House for approval. So the board's main source of income comes from the industry; it does not come from Government. It is therefore right that the industry, not Government, should decide how that money should be spent, and in particular on the nature of the grant scheme which the board should support.
The board has therefore established a system of sectoral committees in which representatives of the industry—employer and employees—discuss the skill and training needs of their industry and determine the detail of the grant scheme that they wish to finance from their levy income. Their proposals are put to the full board and then, if approved, to the Training Commission. The CITB is not required to present their grant scheme to Ministers for approval.
That is an important point. Although the CITB is a statutory body, it is very much in control of the industry, and it is for the industry to determine the detail of its grant support for construction training. It would not be right—and the House will, I think, agree with me on this—for Government to impose a specific grant scheme upon the board. It is the employers' money which is being spent through the board's grant scheme, and it is therefore right and proper that the details of that grant scheme should be determined by the employers, through the board's committee structure. What the Government want to see is less regulation in training, not more; less central direction and more emphasis on commitment from employers at the local level, sectoral and national levels, to investment in training for their own business success.
Turning to the particular case involving Mr. O'Donoghue and the lengthy correspondence which has resulted, I can perhaps help by making two main points. First, to reinforce what I hope I have already made clear, the rules are formulated by the industry itself, not by Government.
I have made it consistently clear to the board—and for that matter to Mr. O'Donoghue—that I would like to see some changes in some of the conditions imposed by the board in the past upon eligibility for grants—for example, the emphasis upon registration with joint industry bodies or the following of particular and inflexible patterns of training. I can tell the House that I am confident that the board's scheme for 1989–90 will be far more flexible and more accessible.
Obviously, I cannot say tonight what the implications of that will be for Mr. O'Donoghue. But he would be well advised to keep in close contact with the board on this. I would also point out—and I underline, in effect, what the hon. Gentleman has said—that Mr. O'Donoghue did receive a grant in 1987 of £200 to which he was entitled under the scheme in operation at that time. My second point is that, as I understand it, Mr. O'Donoghue's son's eligibility for grant support resulted from his apparent decision not to allow his son to participate in YTS.
The youth training scheme is the preferred method of entry into plumbing, because the board's mechanical engineering services committee feels that it assures the quality of training necessary to achieve the standards of competence required in the industry. Mr. O'Donoghue's decision on YTS effectively placed him outside the rules and so made his son ineligible for grant support.
I can only regret Mr. O'Donoghue's decision and must confess that I am at a loss to know why he chose not to take advantage of the funding available for quality training through YTS. Be that as it may, that was his choice and, as I and my officials have consistently told him, I do not have—and neither should I have—the power to require the CITB to alter the rules of its grant scheme to suit his particular whims.
What I hope I have been able to do tonight is, at least, satisfy the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I strongly suspect that nothing I have said will satisfy Mr. O'Donoghue for one moment. Everything I have said has been said to him on numerous occasions in meetings, correspondence, and telephone conversations not only with me, but with my officials and CITB officials. Not only has considerable ministerial time been devoted to this case, but the CITB chairman has been able to give me his personal assurance that a great deal of time and consideration has been given to this case by the board.
In short, I have no doubt that Mr. O'Donoghue has been treated fairly and correctly, and while my acquaintance with Mr. O'Donoghue leads me to believe that he will not be convinced of that, I would like to think that I have been able to satisfy the House.
The hon. Gentleman has suggested—it was implicit in his remarks, but has been explicitly suggested by Mr. O'Donoghue on many occasions—that, in some way, the board has operated improperly when it comes to the question of its investments. Under the 1982 Act an ITB must obtain the Training Commission's approval for all of its investments. To the best of my knowledge, that procedure was fully adhered to in this case.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.